Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Spain

Mr. Edward Garnier: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Spain. [74907]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Relations with Spain are generally strong and reflect the improvement in relations under this Government with all our European partners. In April, we will hold the first ever UK-Spanish summit, which demonstrates our more constructive working relationship on a range of European and security issues.
Our major point of difference remains Gibraltar. I saw the Spanish Foreign Minister again at the weekend, when I made it clear that it is in Spain's as well as Britain's interests that we achieve a return to normality on the Gibraltar border. I have also made it clear that we will never enter into arrangements that would change the sovereignty over Gibraltar against the freely and democratically expressed wishes of its people. That principle remains as valid today as when it was first expressed by a previous Labour Government.

Mr. Garnier: Was not the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer somewhat complacent? Is he not aware that, in a television interview 10 days ago, the Spanish Foreign Minister suggested that the British Government were tolerating, and indeed conniving at, the planning in Gibraltar of assassinations? Will he please call in the Spanish ambassador to draw to his attention the true facts; and will he perhaps pull his socks up over the whole issue?

Mr. Cook: Although the Foreign Minister has made some allegations of wrongdoing in Gibraltar, he has not as yet raised the prospect of assassination. The main issues that have been drawn to our attention concern money laundering and smuggling. On both those questions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have given the same clear message to the Spanish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister: either they should not make such allegations or, if they have evidence of

wrongdoing in Gibraltar, we would want to co-operate on the matter through our law enforcement agencies, as we certainly have no interest in tolerating any breach of the law. It is of course more difficult to achieve that co-operation as long as Madrid refuses to recognise the Gibraltar law enforcement agencies.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the general thrust of the Foreign Secretary's answer. Has he taken any steps in Europe, in addition to his negotiations with the Spanish Foreign Minister, to safeguard the rights and liberties of the people of Gibraltar as European and British citizens?

Mr. Cook: Absolutely. It is our clear position that it is for the people of Gibraltar themselves to decide how long and whether they want to remain British citizens. As long as they do—it is what the overwhelming majority want—we will defend that right, and their full rights under European as well as their own Gibraltar law. They need have no doubt that we are resolutely with them in defending their right to decide their own future.

Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Foreign Secretary comment on Spain's reaction to the Home Secretary's declared intention of applying to sign up to certain aspects of the Schengen agreement? Does not that reaction reinforce the damage that was done when he and the Prime Minister were caught napping in the closing stages of the Amsterdam summit and allowed Spain to secure a veto on any such application? Will he assure the House that the Government's application to sign up to Schengen will include Gibraltar, and that they will not make any concessions on Gibraltar in order to overcome Spain's veto?

Mr. Cook: There is no intention of making any concessions on Gibraltar, in relation either to this issue or to any other. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is factually wrong: neither Spain nor any other country has a veto on whether we join the new arrangements being made under Schengen. There is the need for unanimity on the existing arrangements, but we secured a protocol requiring the other members to use their best endeavours for Britain to join. France, Germany and other countries have already welcomed the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and we are confident that they will use those best endeavours.

Mr. Howard: Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that the protocol has no binding legal effect?

Mr. Cook: What I am well aware of is that we have clear support in Europe for joining, and that our joining will be welcome. If Spain is concerned about law enforcement in Gibraltar, it is in its own interests that Britain and Gibraltar should play a full part.

Iraq

Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [74908]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): In late January, the United Nations Security Council established three panels to deal


with disarmament and humanitarian issues, and Kuwaiti detainees and property. It is anticipated that they will report by mid-April. Meanwhile, we continue to patrol the no-fly zone. All responses by United Kingdom aircraft in the no-fly zones are proportionate and in self-defence.

Mr. Winnick: While recognising the need to defend the no-fly zones, which were indeed approved by virtually the whole House after the Gulf war, will my right hon. Friend accept that it is very important that there should be a precise limit on the bombing that is taking place? Is it not important to recognise that a bloodthirsty and murderous regime such as Saddam Hussein' s will not be brought down by bombing? We have to accept that as a fact.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the no-fly zones were humanitarian measures, introduced in 1991 and 1992, which had the support of the whole House, and they have performed an important humanitarian task. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the action we are taking under the rules of engagement on the no-fly zones is proportionate and will continue to be so. There is no suggestion that we will further change the rules on the no-fly zones.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In considering the nature of military operations over the north and south of Iraq, is it not right to recognise a distinction between a defensive response and what is taking place now—the systematic destruction of Iraq's air defence system? Does the Minister understand the unease at an apparent change of policy towards Iraq, openly acknowledged in the United States of America, which is to disable, debilitate and destroy Saddam? That is a policy for which there is no authority in the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions or in international law. Does he also understand that the unease is compounded by the fact that neither the change of policy to which the United Kingdom is subscribing nor the strategy that underpins it has ever been debated by the House of Commons?

Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that in 1993, 1996 and 1997, Saddam Hussein violated the no-fly zones. On each of those occasions, we reacted in the same proportionate manner in which we are reacting on this occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that there have been more than 100 incursions by Iraqi aircraft and other military equipment into the no-fly zones. We have responded in the same way as before, and there has been no shift in policy.
There is no vacuum, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested there was in his article in The Independent this morning: we are continuing to carry out the humanitarian objectives of the no-fly zones. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he agreed to the no-fly zones in the first place, and that if we were to disengage from those zones, substantial damage would be inflicted on the Kurds and the people in the south of Iraq.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that what is being done has no United Nations authority and no authority from the House of Commons, and that it amounts, in the case of the civilians who are being killed,

to what a Nobel peace prize winner has described as genocide? The Government have shown no readiness to allow the House to discuss the matter when it is clear that there is great anxiety across the Floor of the House about what is being done in our name and without our authority—that is, killing innocent civilians who have no capacity to get rid of Saddam Hussein, although all recognise the brutal nature of his regime.

Mr. Fatchett: There is legal support for the position taken by the United Kingdom. It flows from the United Nations Security Council resolutions and it is to support the humanitarian objectives. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the brutal nature of the regime in Baghdad is the backcloth against which we should ask and answer all these questions. He needs to remind himself, as do others, of what that regime has done to the people of Iraq over the past 20 years.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman is being deliberately obtuse. No one here contradicts the absolute necessity for the policing of the no-fly zones, but the House is not happy about the practice—it continues at the moment—of allied aircraft attacking targets that are, to all intents and purposes, not hostile. Nobody disputes that if planes are locked on to, they should deal properly with targets; but just to take out targets on the ground is improper and outside the United Nations resolutions. It must stop, and Britain should not be a party to it.

Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement recently to the House on those issues. He explained the Government's policy and the continuation of the enforcement of the no-fly zones. There has been no change in that policy and if there is a change, the House will be informed accordingly.

Debt Relief

Mr. Huw Edwards: What discussions he has had with Governments of the G8 about the relief of the debts of the world's most impoverished nations. [74909]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We used last year's G8 presidency to advance the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, agreeing at the Birmingham summit that all eligible countries should be in the debt relief process by 2000. We and our Government partners are preparing for further discussions at this year's Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government meetings.
On 3 March, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development announced a four-point plan to help debt relief and aid poverty reduction in the developing world. It includes a $50 billion debt reduction target for the poorest countries.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of the Jubilee 2000 campaign in my constituency and I commend the Government for being one of the leading countries—if not the leading country—in the relief of debt. Does he agree with me and with the Bishop of


Monmouth, who recently said that if we are against slavery, we must be for the relief of the most unpayable debts of the world's most impoverished countries?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend rightly congratulates the Government on the steps that we have already taken. There is no doubt that all manner of ailments flow from poverty to beset the developing world, including conflicts, premature death and poor education and health. The role of the British Government in beginning to make the case for change has been important. The initiative announced by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development seeks to wipe out $50 billion of debt and to provide development assistance to the tune of $60 billion by the end of 2000. Those are significant steps. The Chancellor's announcement of millennium gift aid tax discretion is also important in ensuring that good will among the people of the United Kingdom can be translated into practical action to relieve poverty among the poorest people and countries.

India and Pakistan

Mr. Mike Gapes: When he next plans to meet the leaders of India and Pakistan to discuss nuclear issues; and if he will make a statement. [74910]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed non-proliferation and regional security issues with Brajesh Mishra, the principal secretary to the Indian Prime Minister and the National Security Adviser, and with Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, during their respective visits to the UK in January and February. I discussed nuclear issues with Foreign Minister Kanju during my visit to Pakistan in February.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Does my right hon. Friend welcome recent indications of improved relations between India and Pakistan, particularly the cricket tour by a Pakistani team to India and the visit by the Indian Prime Minister to meet his counterpart in Pakistan? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hundreds of thousands of people in the UK who have family connections with India and Pakistan look forward to nothing other than good and normal relations between those two important Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Fatchett: I very much agree that the recent talks between the two Prime Ministers in Lahore could herald a new start for relations between India and Pakistan. We wish both countries well. Confidence-building measures are an important first step towards tackling some difficult security and political issues. It is in all our interests, and particularly in the interests of economic and political development in south Asia, that the talks should continue and progress be made.

Sir Raymond Whitney: When the Foreign Secretary next meets the leaders of India and Pakistan, will he again raise with them the question of Kashmir? If so—

Madam Speaker: Order. Questions further down the Order Paper relate to Kashmir, but this question is on

nuclear issues. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a question about the nuclear issue, he may. We will wait until later for Kashmir.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can the Minister confirm that recent discussions between the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers covered nuclear proliferation? Were any steps taken towards nuclear reduction by both sides? I visited both Pakistan and India Kashmir a while ago, and it seemed that if there could be progress on Kashmir, there would be scope for nuclear reduction. Has the Minister looked into that matter?

Madam Speaker: Order. We are on nuclear issues.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman was right, however, Madam Speaker, to say that there is a relationship between Kashmir and the nuclear issue. Kashmir comes up later, I know, and I—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am going to be firm. Back-Bench Members have tabled questions on Kashmir and it is totally unfair of other hon. Members to jump the gun. If the Minister is willing to answer only on nuclear issues, I will hear him. I will not hear him on the Kashmir situation.

Mr. Fatchett: Indeed, Madam Speaker. The nuclear issues were discussed at Lahore, and it is crucial for the region's security that India and Pakistan should sign up to the comprehensive test ban treaty and the range of other non-proliferation treaties. That would lessen the risks of instability in the region and of nuclear or conventional war on Kashmir or other issues. It is vital that we all engage in encouraging India and Pakistan to take such non-proliferation steps, and we shall do so.

Euro Zone

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What assessment he has made of the impact on British foreign policy objectives of the United Kingdom remaining outside the euro zone. [74911]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Her Majesty's Government will decide on whether to recommend in a referendum that United Kingdom should join the euro if we believe that it would be to the economic benefit of the country on the basis of the tests set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in October 1997.
The arrangements for developing the common foreign and security policy are exactly the same for the UK whether we are a member of the euro zone or not. We shall continue to work for common positions in foreign policy where possible, on the basis that we have a much better prospect of securing common objectives in the world if Europe speaks with one voice rather than fifteen voices.

Mr. Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Hans Eichel, the new German Finance Minister,


that any monetary union must be swiftly supplemented by full political union? Is that one of the right hon. Gentleman's foreign policy objectives?

Mr. Cook: We have made it perfectly plain that we very much agree with President Chirac—that what we seek is not a united states of Europe, but a united Europe of states; that remains the policy of this Government. However, we are quite clear that if we conclude that Britain is being economically damaged and undermined by being outside the euro, we cannot possibly pretend to defend and strengthen the independence or sovereignty of Britain by weakening our own economy.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I welcome the way in which our Government and the French Government have been working together on Kosovo, west Africa and NATO enlargement? Is not that a positive way forward for Europe to co-operate, and does it not contrast starkly with the xenophobia we hear from Conservative Members?

Mr. Cook: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's comments. The meeting that took place in Africa last week between me and my French opposite number, and between all our ambassadors to Africa, was an historic first event in the history of Africa; we have never done that together. We have common objectives in Africa of securing stability and an end to conflict, relief of the debt burden, development and the spread of democracy. We have a much better chance of securing that if we work together co-operatively than if we compete against each other as rivals.

Mr. Michael Howard: Perhaps I shall have better luck if I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he agrees with another statement of Germany's new Finance Minister, Hans Eichel, who said only a few weeks ago:
Why does Europe need 15 foreign ministers when one is enough? Why do we still need purely national armies? One European army is enough.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree?

Mr. Cook: No, I do not agree with that, nor does any member of the Government. However, we are working for better security within Europe. That is why we have again tabled with France an initiative that would provide for better security decision making in Europe and clearer access to the assets that we have provided to NATO, so that Europe can better intervene in crises in its own continent. I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the current situation in the Balkans underlines the importance of taking forward that initiative.

Cyprus (EU Accession)

Mr. Nigel Evans: What discussions he has had concerning the accession of Cyprus to the EU. [74912]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Cyprus's EU accession with the Cypriot Foreign Minister when they met in November. He attended the EU Cyprus accession conference on

10 November, which took stock of the good progress made in negotiations so far. My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues from other EU member states on all aspects of the accession process, and there is also close and regular contact at official level.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that the complete shambles within the European Commission should not be allowed to stand in the way of EU expansion? Does she agree that the accession of Cyprus to the EU would benefit communities in both north and south Cyprus? Does she also agree that the fact that Cyprus has removed the new threat of placing S300s in Cyprus, although welcome, is not sufficient to enable progress toward a sustainable peace; and that we must look for new initiatives enabling both north and south to secure a sustainable future?

Ms Quin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of all three elements of his question. Whatever the state of affairs within the European Commission, we are keen that accession negotiations should not suffer; that is extremely important. The hon. Gentleman is also right to believe that both parts of the Cypriot community can benefit from accession to the EU, and I know that that view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, he is also right to say that we must continually look for ways to take forward both the process of EU accession and the important process of seeking a settlement to the Cyprus problem. It is also right to say that we need to look continually for ways of taking the process forward, regarding both EU accession and seeking a settlement of the Cyprus problem.

Mr. Andrew Love: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on keeping the accession negotiations on track. Those negotiations have been bedevilled by the lack of progress in finding a resolution to the division of the island. What success has the special representative to Cyprus had in bringing the two communities together? Can my right hon. Friend give us some idea of what discussions have taken place with the United Nations or with others about restarting the talks between the two communities so that there may be a resolution to the problem of the island's division?

Ms Quin: The efforts of the special representative have been impressive and assiduous in seeking to make progress. However, greater political willingness must be shown—particularly in the north of Cyprus—regarding some of the bicommunal and bizonal activities that we believe are important in paving the way for the eventual reunification of the island. The efforts of that special representative are very important, but we must encourage all sides to participate actively in negotiations.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will know that Turkey, with Greece and Britain, is a co-guarantor of Cyprus's becoming a single nation. What cards are the Government playing in telling Turkey that its accession to the European Union will always be blocked if it does not participate in a settlement of the Cyprus question? Can nothing be done to ensure that Turkey plays a constructive role in bringing together the two halves of Cyprus?

Ms Quin: As we know, Turkey has expressed an interest in attaining a closer relationship with the


European Union, and that must be viewed in the context of moving towards resolving the Cyprus issue. We have made it clear that Turkey does not have a veto on Cypriot accession to the European Union. However, we also believe that it is in the interests of both Cyprus and Turkey to be more positive in their approach to the European Union.

Export Promotion

Mr. Michael J. Foster: If he will make a statement on his Department's future role in export promotion. [74913]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): Following the Cabinet Secretary's review of export promotion, my right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary was delighted to announce on 12 March—also on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the setting up of a new unified Foreign Office and DTI export promotion operation, British Trade International, under a single chief executive. I refer my hon Friend to that announcement.

Mr. Foster: I welcome the creation of British Trade International, which is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to business. What help will it provide to smaller manufacturing companies, such as Excel Automation in my constituency, which is seeking to expand its export market?

Mr. Fatchett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments about last week's announcement. One of the objectives of the new structure is to provide a unified system that will enable domestic companies to sell overseas. Assistance will be provided for United Kingdom companies, such as the one in Worcester mentioned by my hon. Friend, to export to any location around the world. We hope that that assistance will be much more efficient and targeted. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced additional measures to help to promote small businesses and assist with their export activities.

Mr. James Gray: Perhaps further evidence of the Government's commitment to exports is the fact that weapons sales to Indonesia have doubled since Labour came to office. Is that what the Government describe as an "ethical foreign policy"?

Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question because it gives me an opportunity to lay to rest some of the myths that are circulating about arms sales under this Government. An annual report will be published shortly that will set out all the details. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no Hawks, armoured cars, water cannon, flame throwers or other equipment of that sort have been licensed by the Government for sale to Indonesia.
I have absolute confidence that, when the hon. Gentleman reads the annual report, he will see that each licence granted conforms totally to the criteria that we established in July 1997. The Government have followed those criteria—unlike the previous Conservative Government, who were prepared to arm Iraq without even bothering to tell the House.

Ethical Foreign Policies

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: What discussions he has had with his opposite numbers in the G7 about co-operation to develop ethical foreign policies. [74914]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We regularly discuss the promotion of human rights and democracy with our G8 partners. In London last May, G8 Foreign Ministers emphasised the universality of human rights and made a number of practical commitments to promote human rights world wide. The G8 also agreed action on development and debt relief, health, nuclear safety, terrorism, crime and the environment. We are continuing G8 discussions on those issues in the run-up to this year's summit in Cologne in June.

Mr. Tyrie: What work has the Minister done with fellow G8 members to advance the cause of human rights in China? Will the Government condemn the Chinese human rights record here today and at the meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva? Why has a leading human rights activist in China condemned the Government's ethical foreign policy as two-faced?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made a clear public statement condemning the Chinese for abuse of human rights. There is no doubt of the Government's stance. There is equally no doubt that we discuss China, particularly with our European Union colleagues. I shall attend the meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in a few weeks, and there is no doubt that the role of China will figure in those deliberations.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the G8 re-examine the conditions on which money is lent for the construction of dams around the world—in particular, the money lent to Turkey and Syria for the construction of more and more dams that have reduced the Euphrates to a trickle? Winter snows and other adverse conditions mean that the Tigris is lower than ever it has been, with terrible consequences for an already desperate situation in Iraq.

Mr. Lloyd: The Government want to consider water systems more broadly, so my hon. Friend asks an important question which we shall certainly examine. I had perhaps over-anticipated my hon. Friend's question because I thought that he would ask about the Pergau dam scandal, in which the previous Government were prepared to prostitute this country's values in a dodgy deal.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Minister of State and his G8 partners examine ethical foreign policy as regards the pursuit of peace in Sierra Leone? That state remains violent and conflict-riven, and our policy seems to be simply to support one aspect, one person and one president and not to encourage the pursuit of an ethical foreign policy to achieve peace in that country.

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I remind him that President Kabbah is the democratically elected president of Sierra Leone. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should dismiss President Kabbah. If so, he is misguided. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in west Africa last week, he met President Kabbah, among others, and urged on him the need for a negotiated, inclusive settlement which will bring lasting peace to that country.
It is a matter of public record that while Britain has done more than any other country, apart from Nigeria, to try to resolve Sierra Leone's problems, we have actively been lobbying the rest of the world to make the same financial commitment as we have made. The £10 million that my right hon. Friend recently announced is already receiving backing in the international community. The House should welcome that.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this year's agenda recreates universality of human rights and underlines partnership between non-G8 countries? In that context, will he join me in congratulating the people of Qatar on their successful municipal elections, which were held on 8 March under universal suffrage for all Qataris over the age of 18? Women were encouraged and promoted as candidates, there was a free, fair press, and international observers from the middle east, Europe and America ensured free and fair elections.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very important election for the House to examine. He could have gone on to say that women candidates took part freely in that election. The Qatar example is a significant and important signal to the rest of the world, especially the rest of the middle east. Given my hon. Friend's long and deep interest in the middle east and the respect with which he is held, not only in this House but throughout the region on these issues, that message will be particularly strong.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister agree that the significant factor in the waging of civil wars all over the world is the ready supply of arms, which is often in contradiction to an ethical foreign policy? Do the Government intend to support the German Government at this week's Co-Arm talks in their attempts to curb the activities of arms brokers?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Lady that the ready supply of arms in different regions is a very important motor in the continuation of violent solutions to problems that, essentially, ought to be resolved by political means. This Government have certainly worked very hard in specific regions, and generally, to seek action to dry up supplies, especially of small arms which do so much damage. She will know that the results of consultation on the White Paper are being examined by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We want to take forward discussion in Europe about how Europe can crack down on problems caused by European brokers in this very difficult, and sometimes very unpleasant, trade.

United Nations (Finances)

Mr. Michael Jack: What is his current assessment of the financial health of the United Nations. [74915]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): The United Nations remains in serious financial difficulties. At the end of 1998, it was owed more than $2 billion by member states. We urged all member states to pay their dues promptly, in full and without conditions. We continue to promote the European Union's proposals to put United Nations finances on a more secure and equitable long-term footing.

Mr. Jack: The Minister's answer shows the lamentable progress towards achieving the objectives of that European initiative. Is he aware of the 5th Committee, which is trying to secure a better financial base for the United Nations? Is he also aware that agenda item 115, which is being considered by the committee, is behind timetable? What action will he take to ensure that it gets back on timetable? Will he assure the House that, once completed, this matter will be discussed at the next General Assembly of the United Nations?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman wants to try to turn this into an attack on the Government. In fact, this Government have done as much as any. Indeed, I credit previous Governments in such terms. We are a good payer; we pay on time. We set the rest of the world a good example. Britain is up to date with its payments. Some 136 countries owed money at the beginning of the year when time to pay expired. The matter will be raised at the General Assembly. Britain will continue in the European framework, the UN, and with respect to the 5th Committee, to ensure that the argument is taken forward. We remind all states of their obligations—especially the United States, which is the single biggest debtor—that they must resolve their internal political problems and pay the money owed.

Land Mines

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What progress he has made in discussions with his international counterparts to secure the elimination of land mine production. [74916]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We continue to press for as many countries as possible to join the 134 that have already signed up to the total ban on anti-personnel mines that is enshrined in the Ottawa convention, which entered into force on 1 March.

Mr. Griffiths: We welcome the leading role that the Government have played in ratifying the Ottawa convention. Will my hon. Friend do more to ensure that the mines are cleared when, every day, women, children and other civilians fall victim to those awful devices? Is he aware of the work being done by Professor Stephen Salter of Edinburgh university and others throughout Britain on innovative devices to clear the minefields?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right to say that the victims of these mines are not simply combatants in


conflict situations but often, long after conflict has finished, innocent people who had no role in that conflict—women, children and, indeed, men—who lose their lives or their capacity to look after themselves and their families. That is what led the Government to be so actively involved in the process that led to the Ottawa convention. That is what led Britain to be one of the first to get rid of its stock of anti-personnel and land mines. The Army had got rid of its stocks before the Ottawa convention came into force on 1 March this year—a significant achievement.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and Britain is doubling the amount of money that we shall make available for mine clearance in the year 2000, to about £10 million. That will have a significant impact, and we shall continue to lobby among friends and allies, and globally, that all countries should a play a part in de-mining.

Chile

Mr. David Borrow: If he will make a statement on recent discussions between his Department and the Government of Chile. [74917]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Since the arrest of Senator Pinochet, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have had a number of meetings with the Chilean Foreign Minister, Deputy Foreign Minister and ambassador.
Mr. Insulza, the Foreign Minister, and I have agreed that our common objective should be to preserve the sound and long-standing relations between our two countries. In all our discussions, I have made it clear that the extradition procedures are subject to legal process, and that it would be improper of us to interfere with it.

Mr. Borrow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should welcome the closer economic links that have been formed between Chile and the Falkland islands in recent years? Does he also welcome the visit by the Prince of Wales to the region? Will he join me in rejecting criticism, over the past few days, by elements in the right-wing press of the Prince of Wales and his comments in support of democracy?

Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I find it extraordinary that the Prince of Wales should be subject to criticism for a message of reconciliation, in which he stood by the democracy of the people of the Falkland islands. I hope that everyone in Britain can at least welcome those remarks as strongly as did the Foreign Minister of Argentina.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not the case that if his Royal Highness Prince Charles had been able to go to his originally planned destination—Chile—and that if Lan Chile were to be able to continue direct flights from Punta Arenas to the Falkland islands, the situation in the southern cone would be a great deal better?
As the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Ministers are unable to go to Chile in person to find out the situation for themselves, could they not at least take

the advice of someone who has been to Chile—His Holiness the Pope, who knows the region, but who has much greater wisdom and magnanimity than the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Cook: First, the visit to Argentina by the Prince of Wales had been planned since 1994 and is certainly the place that the Prince of Wales wished to go, and that was achieved. He also visited the Falkland islands, and it is to his credit that he wanted to include them on the tour. The letter from the Vatican has not been released by the Vatican, and it is not our custom to release letters pertaining to foreign relations. However, it did raise questions of compassion, and that will certainly feature in the course of our decision at the appropriate time. In the meantime, the Government stand firmly on the principle that any application of extradition should be settled by the courts, by due legal process. We have no intention of interfering in it, and I regret the fact that every month the hon. Gentleman asks us to interfere in it.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When, against the background of the Pinochet affair, the Presidents of Chile and of Argentina signed a joint declaration last December—in which, for the first time officially, Chile recognised the Argentine claims on the Falkland islands—why did the Foreign Secretary fail to make an official representation to the Chilean Government? Has he been caught napping again? Does he not realise that robust and immediate responses are expected from his Department when British interests are at stake?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady is talking humbug. We have made perfectly plain to Chile, and to every other country that has taken that view, the basis of our robust position on the sovereignty of the Falkland islands, and the right of the Falkland islanders to self-determination. We have no anxiety about Chile and Argentina becoming friends, as we are friends of both, but we intend to insist on the right of the Falkland islands to decide their future.

EU Enlargement

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What recent representations he has received about Agenda 2000 relating to enlargement; and if he will make a statement. [74918]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We continue to maintain regular contact on Agenda 2000 with a wide range of domestic interests. We are well aware of the great interest of the applicant countries in early progress.
At the informal meeting of the Foreign Ministers over the weekend, there was general agreement that we are on track for a resolution of Agenda 2000 at Berlin next week.
Although we would have liked further cuts in farm prices, we welcome the fact that we have now reached agreement on agricultural reform, which will cut the food bill of a household of four in Britain by £70 a year.
On structural funds, the current package is likely to produce an increase in Britain's percentage share from the structural funds.
We are on course for a deal on Agenda 2000 that will be a good bargain for Britain, and will provide a basis of sound reforms on which to take forward the enlargement of the European Union.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the countries that have applied to join the European Union are more than willing to sign up to the social chapter and the euro? Does not my right hon. Friend think that their attitude is in stark contrast to that of the Conservative party, whose attitude to European politics seems to be based partly on an obsessive hatred of all things to do with the European Union?

Mr. Cook: Any hon. Member who has visited central and eastern Europe and the applicant countries will be well aware of the immense enthusiasm in those countries—not just of their Governments, but of their people—for joining the democratic family of nations in the European Union. My hon. Friend is right—it is particularly perverse that at a time when the rest of Europe is queuing up to join the European Union, there are so many Opposition Members who want to get off the bus.

Mr. Michael Trend: Four weeks ago, in the context of those talks, the Foreign Secretary gave the House an absolute assurance that the British rebate was non-negotiable. Good. Can he now give the House an absolute assurance that there will be no increase in Britain's contributions to the European Union, in either gross or net terms?

Mr. Cook: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, because the question was answered by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, it is likely that the proposals for reform of agriculture will result in a net increase in contributions, because if we wish to achieve reform, farmers must be compensated. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting otherwise, he is suggesting that the farmers who will suffer from the price cut should not receive compensation. However, the overall increase in Britain's contribution as taxpayers will be more than matched by what Britain will receive as consumers in reduced prices. That is a good bargain for the people of Britain.

EU Institutions

Ms Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on his plans for increasing the democratic accountability of EU institutions. [74919]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government have shown their commitment to improving the European Union's democratic accountability in a number of ways. We supported changes to the role of the European Parliament and to the role of national parliaments at Amsterdam. We have also introduced a number of improvements to our own scrutiny system.
During the British presidency, we made significant progress in improving access to information, including through more open debates in Council and better public access to documents. We continue to attach great importance to introducing more transparency to EU decision-making processes.
With regard to the European Commission, hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to make a statement shortly.

Ms Squire: I must have been under a telepathic influence when I tabled the question two weeks ago for answer today, given the damning report that was published last night and the resignation of the EU Commissioners. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if ever the time was right for making EU institutions more democratic and accountable, it is now? In particular, does she agree that the reform of the management and accountability of the Commission should be accelerated, and that, in line with the Amsterdam treaty, the opening up of the decision-making process in the EU should be given greater priority, so that it is seen to be more responsible, accountable and relevant to the everyday lives of the people whom we represent?

Ms Quin: I agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate her on her perspicacity. We strongly believe that the events of yesterday and today represent a real opportunity to change the European Commission's management culture and to improve EU decision making across the board.

Dr. Julian Lewis: How can democratic accountability in the EU possibly survive if certain leading German politicians have their way? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the German Chancellor has stated:
National sovereignty will soon be a product of the imagination"?
Or that the German Foreign Minister has stated:
My goal is to turn the EU into an entity under international law"?
Or even that the new German Finance Minister has stated:
European unification is an absolute must … The euro is not European unification, but it is one important step towards this end."?
Does the right hon. Lady accept that, if the 20th century has taught us anything, it is the unwisdom of ignoring the pronouncements of German politicians by pretending that they do not mean what they say?

Ms Quin: Throughout the EU, there are many ideas on how to change EU institutions and bring them closer to the people whom we represent. During our presidency, we established an impressive programme of priorities to bring Europe closer to the citizens, and that is the agenda that we are pursuing, for which we have much support.

EU Enlargement

Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the progress of enlargement of the European Union. [74920]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The successful enlargement of the European Union remains a key objective for the United Kingdom. The accession negotiations are on track. The priority for the candidates and the current member states is to concentrate on our mutual preparations for enlargement. It is still too early to predict when the first accessions might take place. However, once we have


agreed Agenda 2000, and the accession negotiations themselves are more advanced, we might be able to set ourselves a deadline for their conclusion.

Mr. Rammell: Given the progress that is being made on Agenda 2000 and on common agricultural policy reform, and given that some of the first-wave applicants have now joined NATO, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in the history of the EU, setting a deadline has often led to decisions being made sooner than would otherwise have been the case? Is there not a case at the forthcoming European Council meetings for at least beginning to consider some of the deadlines and dates for membership for those countries?

Ms Quin: I agree that deadlines can act as a stimulus, but we must not set unrealistic deadlines which cannot be met. So far, the EU accession process has proceeded satisfactorily, and it has been good to see the way in which that process has stimulated beneficial change in some of the applicant countries.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister share my concern that decisions may not now be reached on Agenda 2000 at the Council of Ministers next Wednesday and Thursday, and that because of the current turmoil in decision making, which is causing huge concern in applicant countries as well as existing EU countries, the extended market for which we all hope may well be delayed?

Ms Quin: I share the hon. Lady's concern. It is important to focus on the need to achieve agreement next week. Despite the situation in the EU Commission, the prime decisions to be taken next week will be for national Governments in the Council of Ministers. They know what the issues are and it is for them to ensure that we reach an agreement which will not only be good for the future of the existing EU member countries, but will facilitate the enlargement process, which has such overwhelming support in the House and which can create the large and successful market to which the hon. Lady referred.

Mr. Roger Casale: As my right hon. Friend has said, one of the few matters that even the Conservative party can agree on in relation to Europe is the importance of keeping to a strict timetable for enlargement. That timetable must be respected by the applicant countries, but it is also important that it is respected by the European Union. Will she assure the House that Britain will continue to take a lead in pushing for enlargement as soon as the applicant countries are ready, and will not allow any slippage in that timetable as a result of stalling within the EU on the necessary reforms?

Ms Quin: I am certainly happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he pointed out, the enlargement process has a great deal of support on both sides of the House. I believe that the Government's policies will promote a successful enlargement.

Tibet

Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on the 40th anniversary of the uprising in Lhasa. [74922]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We remain very concerned about human rights in Tibet. We take every opportunity to raise our concerns with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and in conjunction with our EU partners. I will be raising the subject when I visit China in April.

Mr. Baker: Does the Minister recognise that, in recent months, the human rights abuses in Tibet have, if anything, worsened and that monks are being arrested simply for possessing a photograph of the Dalai Lama? I say to the Minister—without any intention of criticising him and his Government—that the policy of constructive engagement, which has been followed by this Government and by others in the west, seems, to me at least, not to be working. Will he review that policy and see what further pressure can be brought upon the Chinese authorities to loosen up in Tibet?

Mr. Fatchett: We have not softened our criticism of China's abuses of human rights, even though there has been dialogue with China on human rights issues. The two are not mutually exclusive. We will continue to press the human rights agenda with China, in relation to both Tibet and China more generally. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will express our concern on those issues at every opportunity.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Can my right hon. Friend outline to the House what assistance has been given to the Tibetan refugees in the north of India since the outrages in Lhasa 40 years ago?

Mr. Fatchett: These are issues that we keep an eye on and discuss with the Indian Government. It is obviously important on a humanitarian level that we do what we can to assist the refugees from Tibet who find themselves based in northern India.

Libya

Sir Teddy Taylor: What progress has been made in normalising relations with Libya. [74924]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The first step in normalising relations with Libya must be for Libya to comply with its obligations in international law—primarily by handing over the two accused of the Lockerbie bombing. With our American and Dutch partners, we have gone to great lengths to arrange for a trial in a third country and also to convince the Libyan Government that it will be a fair trial. I am encouraged by recent statements by Colonel Gaddafi, in particular his recognition that no one can criticise the fairness of Scottish justice. Those statements leave Libya no reasonable grounds on which to refuse to surrender the two suspects.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that sanctions will end, normal transport links will be restored and the Government will endeavour to restore good relations with Libya if the two suspects are handed over?

Mr. Cook: First, we have made it perfectly plain from the start of this exercise that sanctions will be suspended from the moment that the two suspects arrive in the Netherlands. There is also a commitment under the Security Council's resolutions that, within 90 days of that occasion, the Secretary-General will report on Libya's outstanding responsibilities, for instance on the question of compensation. If Libya fully complies in those 90 days, I have every confidence that we can then proceed from suspension to lifting of the sanctions.
On normalisation of transport and other links, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we continue to have concerns over the murder of WPC Fletcher. However, I can assure the House that, if we resolve the issue of our right to try the two Lockerbie bombing suspects, in circumstances and under arrangements that Libya itself asked for, we will show good will and good faith in trying to arrange a resolution of the outstanding matters.

Select Committee Reports

Mr. Dennis Canavan: If he will make a statement about the information which he has received about Select Committee reports before their publication. [74927]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I have already provided such information in my statement to the House, and in written parliamentary answers. The special report on Sierra Leone by the Foreign Affairs Committee is now before the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I shall provide with any further information that it requires.

Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that if there is any further attempt by a Select Committee member to hand over a draft report to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State will hand that report back to the Chairman or Clerk of the appropriate Select Committee?

Mr. Cook: I can happily give my hon. Friend and the House an assurance that we will destroy any such report without taking further action.

European Commission

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I should like to make a statement today on the report of the Committee of Independent Experts, and the resignation last night of Jacques Santer and his 19 colleagues in the European Commission.
The Committee of Independent Experts, set up last January on a motion from the Labour Group of the European Parliament to investigate allegations of fraud and mismanagement, reported yesterday. It is a damning report. It catalogues in key areas a culture of complacency and lack of accountability, and in some cases nepotism, that is unacceptable. The report could not be more clear-cut. It has revealed systemic failings in the Commission which have been tolerated for far too long.
It was absolutely right that the Commission resigned en masse. The President of the Commission should leave as soon as reasonably and practically possible, and a new President should take his place. The Commission should stay only in a caretaker role until a new Commission is appointed.
There is no criticism of the two British Commissioners. Indeed, they played a key role in bringing this issue to a head, and I believe that they should carry on.
Above all, the appointment of a new President and Commission should be the opportunity to push through root-and-branch reform of the Commission, its mandate and its method of operation. I will, of course, discuss these issues fully with Chancellor Schröder, the present European Union President, when I see him later today.
The new President of the Commission must be a political heavyweight, capable of providing the Commission with leadership and authority.
Jacques Santer is by no means solely responsible for this situation. Indeed, to be fair to him, he has instituted many changes of a worthwhile nature. Many of the issues revealed by the report predate his appointment. But I will be blunt: we cannot have the next President decided in the same way as the last, debating the narrow interests of one country or another. The top jobs, not just in the Commission, but throughout the European institutions, should go to the top people. Merit, and merit alone, should decide. We need the best person for the job of President, and we Heads of Government should make it clear that the Commission President operates under a mandate for reform and is a thorough-going reformer.
I would like Heads of Government, in the manner that we proposed last year at the conclusion of our presidency, to give the new Commission—with due involvement on the part of the European Parliament—a specific statement of what we believe the aims and mission of the new Commission should be: a new contract between the Commission and the Council. It should set a clear new course for a Europe of reform and change.
The changes suggested by the committee of inquiry yesterday are just the first step. In the short term, reform must include at least the following: a complete overhaul of the approval and auditing procedures for financial control; a new system for financial management and spending programmes; an entirely new procedure for the awarding of contracts for the provision of services with a new management system to oversee it; reworking of the

whole disciplinary procedure so that staff in the Commission know exactly what is expected of them and what will happen if they fall short of those expectations; and a new system of accountability in the bureaucracy of the Commission so that each individual holding a position of responsibility is fully accountable for the budget and the measures that he or she manages.
In addition, we also need an entirely new framework for fighting fraud and financial irregularities. We have long been advocates of the appointment of an independent fraud investigation office which has full access to documents and officials, and the powers that it needs. That appointment should now be made.
The Committee of Independent Experts will report again soon with further recommendations on reform. We should implement them. In the longer term, we should put in place, as we argued at Amsterdam during our presidency and ever since, a new structure for the Commission, a better process of decision making, and a system of accountability that recognises the importance of connecting the people of Europe more closely to the decisions that affect them.
The inquiry's report has revealed a sad catalogue of negligence and mismanagement. There will, no doubt, be those who see this as just another chance to bash Europe. Intelligently seen, this is, in fact, an opportunity to make changes that many of us believe and have argued are long overdue. It is our responsibility now to use this crisis to ensure that the standards of management and public administration in the European institutions are as high as we expect them to be in national and regional governments in Europe. Let us seize that opportunity, therefore, and use it well.

Mr. William Hague: Yesterday's report from the inquiry on fraud could not have been more devastating. It refers to the European Commission having
lost control of the administration.
It says that
it is difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility",
and that
no supervision was exercised and a state within a state was allowed to develop.
It is welcome to hear the Prime Minister speak of root-and-branch reform—although we are learning, week by week, to judge him by his actions and not by his words—but does he accept that a more drastic overhaul of the Commission is now required than has ever before been envisaged; more important still, that the European Commission needs to do less rather than more; and that what it does it must do better?
Will the Prime Minister ensure that the national Governments now take an immediate grip of this situation, if necessary at an emergency summit within days, to restore public confidence in European institutions and to implement radical change? Will he consider adding to the list of proposals that he made a few moments ago: a binding code of conduct for the appointment of senior officials to prevent personal appointments by Commissioners and to stamp out nepotism in the Commission; an agreement that the European Parliament should be able to sack individual Commissioners who are guilty of misconduct; strengthened and publicly available


declarations of financial interest by Commissioners and by their senior staff; and the immediate introduction of a systematic career management system for senior Commission staff, so that they rotate between responsibilities, as would be normal in any other Administration?
Does the Prime Minister agree that Jacques Santer should be relieved of all responsibilities with immediate effect, leave his office today and not return to it? While supporting the idea of those Commissioners not directly implicated by the report serving out their terms as an interim measure, can I specifically ask the Prime Minister to agree that there should be a total clear-out of the existing Commission and an entirely new set of Commissioners appointed?
Is there not an even bigger issue and more important challenge now, which is that it is time to change the whole culture that leads the European Commission and the European Union to try to do too much and to interfere too often? The report makes it clear that the attempts of the Commission to implement a humanitarian aid budget, a policy on tourism and a highly expensive programme of aid to the Mediterranean led to massive fraud and irregularities that the Commission were unable or unwilling to deal with. Is that not what comes of trying to do too much? Is not the wrong answer to recruit more staff and the right answer to reduce the Commission's range of activities?
This is surely the heart of the matter. Does the Prime Minister recognise that a strong case already exists, further strengthened by this report, for cutting back on what the Commission does and letting national Governments do it instead? Will he accept that there is now considerable evidence that, in almost every case, bilateral aid provides better value for money than EU aid programmes? Is there not a strong case for the EU not to have an aid programme, but for those resources to be spent instead by member states?
Would it not be better, instead of the Commission trying to run a fisheries policy for every country, for local or national fishing industries to have control over the stock of their fisheries, while recognising the traditional rights of other countries?
Should not the Commission be doing less in those and in other ways, so that it might deal more effectively with the real priorities of enlargement of the European Union and completion of the single market? Is it not time not only for a new contract, but a new direction?
Will the Prime Minister now come clean and give straight answers to some specific questions on events of the past few months? Will he confirm that, only yesterday, at the Economic and Finance Council, the Chancellor signed up to creation of a fraud investigation office that, far from being independent of the Commission, would come under the control of the Commission, in directorate F?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that yesterday—on the very day the report was produced—the Chancellor thought it right, at ECOFIN, to sign off the 1997 European Union accounts, whereas the European Parliament itself has refused to do so?
Will the Prime Minister now give the House an answer about what instructions and advice he gave to Pauline Green, the Labour leader of the Socialists in the European

Parliament, before Labour Members of the European Parliament let the Commission off the hook two months ago, after the revelations?
Why was the leader of the Socialist group, Pauline Green, to be seen celebrating that event with Jacques Santer, with champagne, as recorded on German television, rather doing her job of holding the Commission to account?
When the Prime Minister talks about what he will do, will he undertake, this time, to deliver some action instead of some talk? His spokesman has said that the Commission is like Lambeth council in the '80s, and the analogy is not a bad one—fraud and mismanagement resulting from a group of politicians trying to do too much and interfere too much, while the Labour party lets them do it. Is it not time to ensure not only that they clean up their act, but that the Commission is doing less, and doing it better?

The Prime Minister: I should start by reminding the right hon. Gentleman who it was who appointed Mr. Santer. Which country, under which Government, blocked each one of the alternative 15 candidates, until only Mr. Santer was left? It was the Government under whom he was a Cabinet member. If he disputes that, I should read what the former Prime Minister said at the time. He said:
What matters is how competently and efficiently the new President is going to run the Commission. I have worked with Jacques Santer for … a number of years. I know his virtues and his capacity to carry matters forward.
The current Conservative finance spokesman—the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—when he was a Treasury Minister, said:
We are happy with Mr. Santer and we wish him well. He shows every sign, based on his record, of running an efficient and effective Commission.
We have from the Conservative party itself this quote about Mr. Santer:
He is the right man in the right place at the right time".
So let us have no more of trying to blame this Government for any shortcomings in the Commission. The Conservative party has something of a habit of managing to appoint compromise candidates who seem like a good idea at the time, but do not quite work out in the longer term.
As for the irregularities that the right hon. Gentleman says that the Labour Government have let happen, if he reads the report, he will see that the vast majority of irregularities happened before we were even elected—they happened when the Conservative party was in government. The fact is that the current proposals have been made precisely because a committee of inquiry was established under a motion tabled by the Labour group in the European Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman made some other extraordinary comments. He was wrong, for example, in his comment on the Chancellor, who made it quite clear that there should be an independent fraud investigation office. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has also suggested a very big change of United Kingdom policy—that we should effectively change all the Commission's powers—and has said that he would withdraw entirely from the common fisheries policy. Is that current Conservative party policy? [Interruption.] Really—to withdraw from it altogether? Do Conservative Members


think that an attempt unilaterally to impose our policy would be of benefit to the United Kingdom, when it would all have to be negotiated with the very self-same European partners?
There is one question, and one question only: do we use this event as an excuse to indulge the anti-Europeanism of the current Conservative party, which wants to take us out of Europe entirely, or do we regard it as an opportunity to drive through a reform agenda, from a position of strength and influence, in Britain's and in Europe's interests? The worst thing that we could do, when we have the chance of reform, is to return to the disastrous days of Tory diplomacy.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Withdrawing from the common fisheries policy would be not only politically inept, but illegal under the treaties that we have signed. There is no denying the humiliation that the Commission has suffered over the past 24 hours or the significance of the victory achieved by the Parliament over fraud and mismanagement. Is it not clearly the case that relations between the Parliament and the Commission will never be quite the same again? Do not those events provide an opportunity for the reform of the European Union, the Commission and the Parliament, even to the extent of giving the Parliament the power to hold individual Commissioners to account, which the Labour Members of the European Parliament voted against earlier this year? Does the Prime Minister accept that we shall not achieve an open, accountable and transparent Europe merely by modifications or alterations, and that we need radical reform? Do we not need a set of clear political rules by which to manage the affairs of the European Union? Is not the case for a constitution for the European Union overwhelming?

The Prime Minister: It is important to get the reforms right. The reforms suggested by the Leader of the Opposition would be wholly detrimental to the interests of this country. We must be careful how we reform the European Commission and other European institutions. In the short term, measures connected with financial management and budgetary control are essential, and we can put them into effect quite quickly. We can also set up an independent fraud office almost immediately.
In the longer term, we must be careful about saying that the answer to everything is more power to the European Parliament. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that, as did the Leader of the Opposition to an extent. One of the strongest connections that we can have is with the Council of Ministers, which represents the democratically elected Governments of the European Union. We need to get the longer-term reforms right and the shorter-term reforms in place. We can do that now.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we should use this situation as an opportunity for reform. We can do that. The initial indications from other countries in the European Union are that as a result of what has happened, the reformers are very much in the ascendant.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest institutional blocks on reform is the fact that individual Commissioners cannot be disciplined and removed from office without the wholesale resignation of the Commission? Will he

also ponder on the fact that we have a weak leader of the European Commission because he was foisted on us by the previous Conservative Government? They took their decision not in the national interest, but because of the divisions in the Conservative party at the time. Is it not also the case that when there was misconduct at the highest levels of Government under the previous Administration in this country, we used that not as an argument to remove and dismantle that Government, but to bring about fundamental and effective reform? That is what should happen with the Commission and the European Union.

The Prime Minister: It is important that the next President of the Commission is someone of strength and real authority in the European Union. It is also important to look carefully at the terms under which Commissioners and senior officials in the bureaucracy are appointed. Those changes can be taken forward with considerable backing from all countries of the European Union.

Mr. John Major: Will the Prime Minister accept that, no doubt inadvertently, he misled the House on the subject of Mr. Santer's appointment? Mr. Santer was proposed by all the other members of the European Union before I accepted his appointment on behalf of this country.
On the substantive point of his statement, does the Prime Minister agree that the report throws up an institutional problem that has long existed in the European Union? The structure of the Union is such that the Commission, in theory, is accountable to the Council of Ministers. However, in practice, the irregularity with which the Council meets means that detailed supervision over many of the activities of the Commission is not undertaken properly, either by the Council of Ministers or, in any other sense, by the European Parliament.
Is not one of the most important reforms—it is many years overdue, I happily concede—clear-cut financial accountability by the Commission, ideally to the member states of the European Union or, if that is too cumbersome, to a body that itself reports directly to the member states for them to judge how effectively the accounts are being managed? The Prime Minister and his fellow Heads of Government have a tremendous opportunity, in light of the report, to effect such a reform. Simply replacing the existing Commissioners will not do. If he takes that opportunity for structural reform, he will deserve the support of both sides of the House.

The Prime Minister: I will deal with the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question and leave aside what will have to be disagreement on the first part. The institutional problems to which he drew attention have been there a long time, and there is a lot of merit in what he says, in two senses. There is a problem with detailed supervision because the Council, necessarily, meets irregularly. Secondly, we need a better system of financial accountability—that was one of the things that I set out in my statement. That better system of financial accountability—in the longer term—may well require some fundamental change to the way in which the present system works. The point that the right hon. Gentleman made is well worth looking at.
Reading back on much of what the right hon. Gentleman said at previous European Councils, one sees that it is true that this has been an issue for a long time,


and it would be misleading—on this point, although I do not accept that charge on the first point—if I were to say that this argument was not mounted by the previous Conservative Government. However, the big difference now is that I believe that a consensus for reform is beginning to form right across the European Union for some of the things for which the right hon. Gentleman argued but, at the time, was unable to get through. We can build the alliance for that now, but we can do so only if we see this as an opportunity, and not as an excuse to indulge in the Europhobia that some Conservative Members—although not the right hon. Gentleman—want.

Mr. Clive Soley: Is not what the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said an example of the importance of this country having a positive approach to Europe? If we have a negative and divided approach, the problems of which we have been aware for some time will inevitably continue. We need a strong and independent check on fraud, and a body dealing with standards and privileges for Commissioners. Perhaps at this stage we ought to record our thanks to Pauline Green and Alan Donnelly for the lead that they have taken on this matter.

The Prime Minister: The committee of inquiry would not have been set up but for the motion, which came not merely from the Labour group, but from British Labour members of that group. Secondly, the committee of inquiry will make a further report shortly. We should implement that as well.

Mr. William Cash: The Prime Minister says that we must get the reforms right. Why can he not match the scale of this crisis with a statement dealing with the real problems facing this country? Is he prepared to go to the Berlin summit in a few days and make a proposal to the other Heads of Government to deal with the real questions, which relate to the loss of national democracy, accountability and the means of calling people to account? Is he prepared to table amendments at the intergovernmental conference that is due shortly to ensure that we get the balance right, and bring back to this House and to the other national Parliaments the democracy and accountability that the electors of Europe and this country truly deserve?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt get a lot of support for that view from his own side. He believes that Britain should not be a member of the European Union at all. The idea that if I adopted his position on Europe I would go to Berlin with great influence is absurd: I would go there with no influence at all. If he had his way, I would not even be invited to Berlin and to the conference.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I can take points of order only at the end of statements, and I have three statements to deal with today.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman caused quite enough difficulty for my predecessor without causing

difficulty for me as well. We have a fundamental disagreement about how to get the best for Britain out of Europe. He would do it by effectively taking Britain out of Europe; I believe that we should stay in Europe, fight for our interests as other countries do, and build consensus and alliances for the changes that we want.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will recollect that when he led the Labour delegation to Strasbourg, I was the Labour member on the Budget Committee and on the Budget Sub-Committee dealing with fraud. In the light of experience, especially of the Friuli earthquake compensation, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accept that it is very difficult to get politicians to have anything to do with fraud investigations into their own country, not least if they are Italians? No Italian MEP would have anything to do with the Friuli investigation. Does he agree that if an investigation is to be effective, it will have to be on a European, rather than on a country-by-country basis, and that there will have to be a strong, independent investigative team?

The Prime Minister: I will not pray my hon. Friend's remarks in aid for my new strategy for the Italian alliance. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a problem with countries investigating their own institutions to determine whether fraud has occurred, but that is surely precisely the reason why we need an independent investigative fraud office, which is what we proposed and what I now believe will be accepted.

Mr. David Davis: In June and July last year, before the furore that led to yesterday's events, the Public Accounts Committee published a report criticising the fraud and waste in Europe. I called for an independent anti-fraud office, with teeth, to be set up. The Commission dismissed that as unnecessary. Does the Prime Minister accept that an anti-fraud office that will do the most to stop the rot at the centre of Europe will be on the Danish, Dutch and British model: independent in funding, appointment and activities, with absolute access to the information in all the institutions in Europe, and reporting back to European taxpayers through the Council of Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I do indeed believe that the body should be fully independent and allowed to carry out its functions in a way that establishes its own credibility, quite apart from anything else. That is the best thing for Europe. The standing of the European Commission has been damaged, quite rightly, and the best way for us to respond is to act now. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Public Accounts Committee made that proposal before, but the difference is that this time—I found this in the discussions in Petersberg a few weeks ago and, before that, in Vienna—it will find an echo right across Europe.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I support what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the current Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said. I want to refer to events as they unfolded late last night. Is not it clear that the responses of Jacques Santer and Mrs. Cresson were wholly inadequate? The report found fraud, nepotism and mismanagement, and the


minimum response from those singled out should be not only immediate resignation, but no possibility of reinstatement.

The Prime Minister: I agree that the response was wholly inadequate, which is why we have called for the measures that I outlined today.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Did the Prime Minister hear Sir Leon Brittan this morning, saying, without making any excuse, that one of the problems that the Commission had was that national Governments asked it to take on more than it was equipped to handle? Does he accept that if, in his new contract, he were to take the opportunity for reform by circumscribing the activities of the Commission and the pressure put on it by national Governments to do more, not as a cover for disengagement but as a genuine reform, he would carry the support of all parties in the House?

The Prime Minister: It is worth considering how we describe the functions of the Commission, although I suspect that even those who are most insistent that we remove some of its activities would want, in other circumstances, to start adding responsibilities. It is necessary to look root and branch at the activities we want the Commission to undertake and how it undertakes them. I hope that we can have a sensible debate across the House, because that would be in the interests of this country.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that although the two British Commissioners were apparently cleared completely of any charge against them, they were collectively responsible for the work of the Commission? Will he take the opportunity to make one significant reform—which is entirely in his hands—and give the House of Commons the opportunity to vote for and appoint the British Commissioners in Brussels? I wrote to him on that point today and legislative provision for it is contained in the Crown Prerogatives (Parliamentary Control) Bill, which has support on both sides of the House and would be a significant way to spread power from the few—indeed from the individual—to the many of the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot offer my right hon. Friend any solace on that last point. In respect of his first point, I have looked at the report carefully and neither of the two British Commissioners was personally criticised or involved in any shape or form in the specific cases that were examined. Therefore, it would be wrong if we were to single out our Commissioners for blame in those circumstances.

Mr. David Curry: Is it not curious that the one word that did not pass the Prime Minister's lips was Parliament? As a democratically elected leader, does he not believe that he should discuss with his fellow Heads of Government how the European Parliament and national Parliaments can co-operate rather than compete to represent the people's interests in Europe and achieve genuine accountability? The Prime Minister mentioned a new President. Is he suggesting bringing

forward the appointment of the whole of the new Commission or merely appointing a temporary stop-gap between now and next January?

The Prime Minister: I have said that I believe that the President of the Commission should stand down as soon as possible and that we should put the new Commission in place as soon as possible. I am here, being accountable to Parliament through the statement I am giving, but when I described longer-term reform, I had in mind the clutch of issues that we raised in Cardiff during our presidency, which included the need for better co-ordination between the European Parliament and national Parliaments. Because Europe has those powers, the more scrutiny to which it is subjected and the better the debate between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments and Governments, the better it is for democracy. However, I would stress, as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), that—I suppose probably all Prime Ministers say this—we must take account of the fact that the Council of Ministers is also a democratically accountable body, in the sense that each Prime Minister goes home and is accountable to his or her Parliament.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend rightly called for a root-and-branch reform of the Commission. Which institution of the European Union has the power to carry out such reform? If proposals are made for such reform, will they require a treaty to ratify them?

The Prime Minister: That depends on the nature of the reforms proposed, but we already have in the Amsterdam treaty some issues that were left over for the purpose of sorting out enlargement including, for example, the structure of the new Commission. In any event, we will consider some of those issues very carefully over the coming months. We should bind into that an opportunity to analyse some of the fundamental reforms that we can make. My right hon. Friend asks about the correct institution, but the correct beginning of the process of reform is with the Council of Ministers.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that the basic problem is the fact that those 20 little emperors in Brussels have massive powers? They are not highly qualified, experienced civil servants, subject to disciplines and controls, but redundant politicians who are faced with daily temptations on the basis of the ever-increasing powers given to Brussels. While a minority take the view that Europe would be strengthened if the Commission were to close its doors tomorrow, does the Prime Minister agree that we could improve the administration of, and spending controls in, Europe if powers such as agricultural management and foreign aid were returned to member states?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that it would be in our interests to renegotiate the entire terms of European Union membership or of the institutions of the EU. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and our disagreement will simply remain. In respect of the hon. Gentleman's very


harsh words about the Commissioners, I must say that I dug out an interesting statement that he made when Mr. Jacques Santer was appointed. The hon. Gentleman said:
He is a quiet, decent, responsible person and we can congratulate John Major for accepting him.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that one reason why he has had to come here today to talk about the latest crisis in the common market is the contradiction in the common market? For as long as it is based on the idea that nation states must scratch one another's backs to get what they want—that is roughly how the common market operates—the net result will be a democratic deficit. If that democratic deficit resulted in a European Parliament that could properly scrutinise fraud and all the rest of it, we would have a united states of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not want that, and nor do I.
Crises will therefore continue to confront the Prime Minister and everyone else in the common market. We must understand that no matter how well meaning the proposals are, the common market will continue to have one nation state scratching another's back to get what it wants. That is the problem that the whole common market must face.

The Prime Minister: If we consider the balance of our interest in being in or out of the European Union, we can see that it is fundamentally in our interest to be in it. It is in our interest in terms of jobs, trade, industry and influence in the world. Scratching each other's backs is one way of describing what happens, but there is a mutual self-interest in being part of the European Union. Whatever changes and reforms we make in the EU, I believe that Britain is better in than out.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I accept that Her Majesty's Government have a role in the appointment of the new President of the Commission and the nomination of two United Kingdom Commissioners. Have the Government any say, however, in the appointment of other Commissioners? In particular, have they any say in the reappointment of one retiring Commissioner who is the subject of a public inquiry into the disappearance of £50,000 in his own country?
Secondly, in so far as centre right politics in Europe is concerned, does the Prime Minister agree with new thinking in Europe that the Commission should be appointed by the European Parliament, not by national Governments?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the European Commission should be appointed by the European Parliament, not national Governments, I do not agree. It is better that nation states appoint Commissioners.
In respect of the right hon. Gentleman's other point about the appointment of other Commissioners, of course we have a say. All Commission appointments are discussed at the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals, which

seem exactly the right way in which to deal with a long-running problem? Our own Select Committee on European Scrutiny said in January:
This is the fourth successive year in which the Court has not been able to provide assurance about the legality and regularity of the accounts of the general budget.
There remains the problem of the existing Commission and its collective responsibility. Without wishing to bash Europe in any way—there is no need; Europe is self-bashing these days—may I suggest that we should follow the practice of a president of a company that has failed because of incompetence, nepotism, selfishness and lack of leadership among its board? The board should go, and we should call in the administrator.

The Prime Minister: The board has effectively gone and it is right that the President of the Commission takes responsibility. My hon. Friend mentions that the European Scrutiny Committee has raised the issue of dealing with the problems of fraud; it is fair to say that this country and the various Committees of this House have been raising that issue for many years. My point is that we now have an opportunity in Europe to push that reform with the agreement of other countries. I do not know how it will be seen by our national media, but it is interesting that the media of other European countries see the whole issue as giving a fair wind to those who want to reform the system, once and for all.

Sir Michael Spicer: If we are facing institutional corruption and fraud, to borrow Sir William Macpherson's phrase, what proposals does the Prime Minister have for institutional reform?

The Prime Minister: The proposals I made in the statement for changes in the whole system of financial accountability, disciplinary proceedings in respect of Commission staff and awarding of contracts are all institutional changes, as is the establishment of an independent fraud office. In the longer term, we should look at ways in which we can introduce a better system of accountability between member states and the European Union. Those are all changes that we can look at and do.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Surely it is not only a matter of appointing a stronger President who has even greater authority—I think my right hon. Friend spoke about greater authority being established—but a matter of having democratic arrangements in place, so that whoever is there is controlled by those provisions. Should we not move to a system whereby the bodies that make decisions are the Parliaments—the European Parliament and the Parliaments of the nation states?

The Prime Minister: There is a case for looking at how to strengthen the link between national Parliaments and the European institutions, and that is what we proposed at Cardiff during our presidency. When I talk about the new President of the Commission having strengthened authority, I mean that we should appoint someone who is clearly a political heavyweight and who can make the European Commission into the sort of body that Europe needs. However, I am also suggesting, as we proposed at Cardiff at the conclusion of our presidency,


that the Commission operate under a specific mandate and statement of aims and mission from the Council of Ministers. That is the right place to start.

Sir Edward Heath: I agree with the Prime Minister's analysis of the situation and that his proposals are worth deep consideration. I would suggest only that when discussing those matters with the other countries, the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the danger of being told that the British just want to run everything. That is a real danger, which he has encountered once before.
The good side of the situation is that, for the first time, the European Parliament has been prepared to act and to act decisively. Things will never be the same again, because, in future, the Parliament will always take an attitude and carry it through. That has to be taken into account. I suggest that that gives every one of us a powerful argument to use in the forthcoming European elections, which is to say to our own electorate that the time has now come when they should use their vote to get the representation in the European Parliament that we ought to have, rather than having the smallest of the lot.

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that it is right that we try to get representation in the European Parliament that will stick up for Britain's interests in a sensible way. It is also true that we are not telling the rest of Europe that we in Britain know how to run everything and everyone has to take our instructions. However, with a Government who believe in a strong and influential position for Britain in Europe, we now have the chance to build the alliance necessary to get the right changes in Europe. I say with respect to my predecessor as Prime Minister that, at the beginning of his premiership and before his party put the manacles on him, he tried to achieve that and to construct a different set of relationships in Europe. It is possible for us to do that now, but we shall succeed only if we recognise and say, right up front, that Britain is a key partner in Europe. We shall play our role as a partner in Europe and, in doing that, fashion a Europe of which this country can be proud.

Ms Jenny Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to achieve the long-awaited reforms on fighting fraud and bringing greater financial accountability to the Commission, the work of the Court of Auditors should be given due recognition and that organisation should be given greater power? The Court of Auditors has for some time been pointing out what is wrong with the Commission in that respect.

The Prime Minister: There is certainly a case for ensuring that the Court of Auditors has all the powers it needs. However, I believe that the existence of the independent fraud investigation office will make the critical difference. If people can see that allegations are investigated by an independent body, it will give the whole system greater credibility. When the issues were first raised in the European Parliament, the European Labour group was absolutely right to call for an inquiry first and to make the necessary changes on the basis of

that inquiry. If we take this opportunity to put in place a wholly independent system, it will be far better and far more credible for the future.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Prime Minister arguing for the immediate reappointment of the British Commissioners? If so, is that not rather odd because they must bear some of the collective responsibility for what has gone on and for the Commission's failure to act in spite of many warnings and reports? Would not the Prime Minister and his Government be better advised to stay their hand and consider carefully what is in the best interests of the Commission and of the European Union when appointing a new Commission, rather than joining other countries in rushing to reappoint discredited Commissioners?

The Prime Minister: It would be strange if Britain responded to this issue by sacking the two British Commissioners, who have been subject to no personal criticism or investigation regarding the original areas of complaint. It would be odd if we did not reappoint our Commissioners and other countries—whose Commissioners were also subject to no criticism—did the opposite. That would not be in this country's interests.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Although it is quite understandable that the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), should seek to play down his key role in appointing the President of the Commission—Jacques Santer has, from day one, suffered from delusions of adequacy—does the Prime Minister accept that it is important to remember the role that the whistleblower played in revealing the fraud that has taken place? Greater provision for freedom of information in the European Commission's work and in dealings between each member state and the Commission, and greater protection for whistleblowers in the EC, should be part of the reform package.

The Prime Minister: I support any moves that make the system more transparent because transparency will aid accountability.

Mr. Charles Wardle: In several of his replies, the Prime Minister has asserted that the two United Kingdom Commissioners are free from blame—indeed, they were not mentioned in the report. Will the Prime Minister place in the Library the memorandums that show when the two British Commissioners first flagged up the mess that was under their noses—if they ever did so—before the balloon went up?

The Prime Minister: As I said in my statement, the two British Commissioners played a crucial part in bringing the issue to a head and in insisting that action was taken. Despite Conservative Members' comments, it would be very odd if we ultimately alighted upon the two British Commissioners—who were not subject to any personal criticism at all—as the ones who should pay the price.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The selection and appointment of Commissioners is clearly key to the reform of the institution and is a matter for


national Governments. What will happen if the French Government wish to reappoint, or assert their right regarding, Mrs. Cresson?

The Prime Minister: Let us wait and see whether that is the case. As I said earlier, any appointments or re-appointments are discussed in the Council of Ministers.

Crime Reduction

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on forthcoming Government initiatives to tackle crime. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides the foundation for our strategy on crime and disorder. The major reforms of the youth justice system for which it provides are currently being rolled out; and the House will be familiar with them. Two other major parts of the Act come into force in the next two weeks. From 1 April, effective local crime strategies to reduce crime and disorder must be in place in every area of the country. Those strategies are being drawn up by the more than 400 statutory partnerships established between the police and local authorities. They follow a six-month period of consultation between local communities, police and local authorities.
Clear and deliverable local targets are being set to reflect the priorities of each local community. Those targets will, for the first time, give local people the means to monitor how effective are the police and local authorities in reducing crime and disorder in their area. The early signs are that those local partnerships have invested considerable energy and enthusiasm. We all understand that they must now deliver.
I know that many hon. Members have been as concerned as I, the police and local authorities about the lack of effective remedies to combat serious and persistent anti-social behaviour in our communities. We have been determined to put that right. I am therefore pleased to tell the House that the new anti-social behaviour order under the Crime and Disorder Act will come into force and be available to the courts from 1 April—in only 15 days' time.
That civil order will be available against any individual over the age of 10 whose behaviour is such that the court judges it likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. In terms of the rules of evidence and the burden of proof, the order will be similar to a civil injunction. It will typically impose conditions restraining the behaviour of named individuals. Those may include a curfew or prohibition on going to particular areas or houses or contact with particular individuals. A breach of an anti-social behaviour order will be an arrestable offence punishable on indictment by up to five years in prison or by an unlimited fine.
Many police forces and local authorities are undertaking work to prepare for the start date of 1 April. I am today issuing detailed guidance about the use of the orders. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office.
Last July, I announced our intention to begin a £250 million, evidence-based crime reduction programme to reverse the long-term upward trend in crime. It is the biggest programme of its kind ever undertaken in this country or abroad. I am pleased to say that the first projects under that programme will soon be under way.
On Thursday, I shall announce the first 11 provisional areas to benefit from a £30 million initiative in targeted policing to establish what works. That will give targeted support to some of the most innovative and dedicated police work that is taking place. The schemes will bolster the police in their dedicated work to tackle crime.
England and Wales have one of the worst records on burglary in the industrialised world, despite recent falls owing to excellent work by the police and local authorities. Early next month, therefore, we shall announce the 60 areas that are to benefit from the first phase of a £50 million anti-burglary initiative. Over three years, our scheme will cover more than 2 million homes in about 500 of the country's high crime areas. It builds on the previous Government's safer cities campaign, which I commend, and should have a major impact on property crime rates.
I turn now to the outline announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement last week. As he told the House, an additional £150 million is being allocated to boost support to crime prevention in areas in England where crime is highest. That brings the total funds for the crime reduction programme to more than £400 million.
The breakdown of the additional £150 million will be £20 million in the coming financial year, 1999–2000; £60 million in the next year; and £70 million in the third year, 2001–2002. In addition, £13 million will be available for projects in Scotland, £4 million for Northern Ireland and a further £3 million for Wales. A key focus of that additional programme will be investment in closed-circuit television systems and the infrastructure necessary to make these systems operate most effectively, including in housing estates, towns, bus and railway stations and car parks.
The evidence is clear. In the right context, CCTV can significantly reduce crime and disorder. It is like having permanently on the beat in particular streets or areas a number of police officers with eyes in the back of their heads and an incontrovertible record of what they have seen. When used properly, CCTV can deter criminals, greatly assist the police and others in bringing offenders to justice and help to reduce people's fear of crime.
Take vehicle crime, for example. It accounts for almost a quarter of all recorded crime and costs us £4 billion a year. In September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a national target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over the next five years. The additional resources for CCTV and related security improvements are a major step on the road to meeting that target. Among other things, the resources will be targeted at improving car park security. Home Office research in six cities provides firm evidence that the installation of CCTV in car parks leads to significant reductions in vehicle crime.
A project in Hull, for example, led to a fall in the theft of cars in the targeted car park of almost 90 per cent., compared with a reduction of only six per cent. in the city centre as a whole. Given that up to 30 per cent. of all such crime takes place in car parks, the potential pay-offs from this major new investment in security are enormous. Another project in Darlington has cut the number of vehicle offences in the town by more than 80 per cent.
Funding for the new initiative will be allocated through a competitive bidding process. We will invite bids for schemes in places to which the public have access. We expect roughly half the funding to be allocated to residential areas, although the precise split will depend on the quality of the bids received. Bids must be submitted through local crime and disorder partnerships. Successful

bids will be those which have the biggest impact in reducing crime, are part of a broader strategy and represent the best value for money.
The initiative will be managed jointly by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as part of the crime reduction programme, with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices discharging their separate responsibilities. The joint work of the DETR and the Home Office is significant. It represents co-ordinated government at both national and local level, and will complement existing programmes, such as the new deal for communities and the single regeneration budget. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will issue a joint prospectus as soon as possible, which will set out guidance to partnerships on the submission of bids, including time scales and selection criteria.
The measures that I have announced today are part of a coherent strategy for giving local communities the means that they need to tackle crime, the fear of crime and disorder. I commend them to the House.

Sir Norman Fowler: I welcome the proposal to extend closed circuit television. The previous Conservative Government introduced that measure, and it is one of the reasons why crime has come down over the past five years. In opposition, we have pressed for its extension, so we welcome the announcement. I quarrel only with the Home Secretary's description of CCTV as being like having a number of police officers permanently on the beat in particular streets. I do not agree with the implication of that remark. We certainly need CCTV, but we need policemen on the beat, too. Our fundamental criticism of the Government is that they are cutting the number of police.
CCTV apart, the Home Secretary's statement is simply a re-announcement of old policies—as we had yesterday from the Secretary of State for Health. If anyone doubts that, they need only look back to the Prime Minister's speech at September's Labour party conference, in which he said:
Because of the Government's policies, young children alone on the streets can be subject to curfews. From April, anti-social neighbours can be taken to court and punished. I announce today that we will be introducing measures to tackle the first of 20 worst crime hotspots around the country.
What is new is that the Home Secretary is claiming credit for extra spending on law and order. He boasts of £400 million over the next three years. If that is his claim, where will the money come from? Let the Home Secretary confirm that between 1979 and 1996–97, under the previous Government, there was a 3.3 per cent. average annual real increase in Government financing for the police. If the Government had kept to that average, they would be spending an extra £1.3 billion on the police over the next three years. It is a story with which we are familiar: the Government have taken a lot of money from one budget, namely, the police; they have given some of it to another budget, namely, crime prevention; but, most of all, they have kept the change.
On the anti-social behaviour orders, let me ask the Home Secretary two questions. First, can he give the House an assurance that the orders, which we have supported, do not offend, as is claimed by some, against the European convention on human rights? We have already seen one example this week of how that may have


happened—contrary, I suggest, to overwhelming public opinion in this country. No one wants to see another such example.
Secondly, as the Prime Minister said, the child curfew orders were a central part of the Government's strategy. Can the Home Secretary confirm that, after six months, no local authority has applied for such an order?
Lastly, the Home Secretary mentioned targeted policing—hotspot policing, as the Prime Minister described it. The idea comes from the United States, together with so-called zero tolerance policing. It has been very successful there in reducing crime, but I emphasise that it has been accompanied by a determined drive to recruit more police in New York and throughout the United States. Surely the trouble with the Government's approach is that they are presiding over a declining police service in this country. We increased police numbers by more than 15,000 during our period in office, but police strength is now coming down in this country—down in the cities and down in country areas. Does that not mean that the full potential to reduce crime in this country will not be realised under the Government's policies?

Mr. Straw: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to welcome what I have said about closed circuit television—and well he might, because the previous Government invested £38.5 million in closed circuit television over four years whereas we are investing £150 million over three years into such crime reduction programmes. We are not taking that money from the police.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, under the previous Administration, budgets rose by an average of 3.5 per cent. That took place at a time of much higher inflation. Police budgets are due to increase by 3 per cent. during the next year and, in other areas, budgets are due to increase by 3.5 per cent.
As for accusing us of cutting police numbers, that is an extremely dangerous line for the right hon. Gentleman to follow. Although it is true that the number of police rose in the 1970s under a Labour Administration and in the 1980s under the Conservative Administration, after 1992 the Conservative Administration presided over a serious decline in police numbers. Notwithstanding the fact that they had promised 6,000 more police officers, they delivered 450 fewer police officers in that five-year period. As for the past two years, when the numbers have decreased, we were following the previous Conservative Administration's spending plans, with only this difference: we put in a bit more money than they did.
I see the right hon. Gentleman smirking about that, as Conservatives always did when they broke their promises, but Conservative Members need to remember that they lost office so comprehensively because they broke their promises.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there was nothing new in the statement except the increased funding for closed circuit television. There was a great deal that was new, including the guidance—which I have published today—on the use of anti-social behaviour orders, which has been the subject of a great deal of consultation with local authorities, the police and others. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman now welcomes the use of

those orders, because we received a mixed message during the legislation's passage through Parliament. I believe that one or two Conservative Front Benchers welcomed them, but the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) described them as "dangerously unworkable" and the Conservative central office information simply dismissed them as "a gimmick". The orders will be workable, and they should make a great deal of difference. [Interruption.] I shall deal with child curfew orders in a moment.
I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's question about the European convention on human rights. There is always space for people to undergo a Pauline conversion on matters such as human rights, and we greatly welcome the Conservatives' subscribing to the convention. The answer is that I signed a clear statement to the House, saying that we believed that the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act were compliant with the European convention.

Sir Norman Fowler: Believed?

Mr. Straw: Of course. It is a statement based on the best opinion that we received. I cannot take account of all the possibilities that may occur in Strasbourg. It is our best belief, and it has never been gainsaid.
On child curfew orders, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that no local authority in England or Wales has applied for such a curfew, [Interruption.] but as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is pointing out, the equivalent has been used in Scotland. When I went to Yardley in Birmingham before the election, I was asked for such orders to be used there.
This is not an exercise in central government, whereby we tell local authorities and local communities what to do. We are responding to their requests for such orders. It is up to local communities to use them. It is possible that, owing to the success of all our other reforms of the youth justice system, they may not be needed, but if they are needed, they are there.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if there is one lesson that we should learn from the 1980s, it is that simply pouring more resources into the police is not the right way to deal with crime. The real issue is how those resources are used. My constituents will welcome the new measures that he has announced today, and will watch with great interest to see how they work. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give the House that the resulting reduction in crime will be properly audited, and that figures will not be massaged by some local police forces in order to give a better impression than is warranted by reality?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he gives. He is right to say that we must be as careful about the expenditure of resources on law and order as about that on other areas. I hope that we may be able to get beyond the rather low level of debate offered by the Opposition, whose only concern now appears to be inputs, rather than outputs—notwithstanding the fact that they sought to elevate the debate on every other public service to the level of outputs.
The document entitled "Reducing Offending" shows that there are many cost-effective ways of reducing crime. For example, the research evidence from the safer cities


programme initiated by the previous Administration shows that money invested in burglary prevention projects produces a rate of return five times higher than money invested in additional police officers. Chief constables know that, which is why, when they are offered a choice about how to spend their money, they often do not put it directly into expenditure on more officers, but invest it instead in IT systems and additional civilians.
My hon. Friend asked me to ensure that the reductions in crime are properly audited. I should tell him that a major exercise is being undertaken by the research and statistics directorate of the Home Office to lend greater credibility to the crime statistics across the country. Many police forces already ensure the highest levels of integrity in those data. Some do not, and we are taking them to task.

Mr. Bob Russell: The thrust of the statement is to be welcomed, as is the fact that the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are working together. Perhaps it would be better still if other Departments were brought in—the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health are two obvious examples.
Can the Home Secretary tell the House how much of the doubled crime that was experienced under the 18 years of Conservative Government will be eaten into by the measures that he announced today? When does he expect us to get back to the 1979 level that the Conservative Government inherited?
There is concern that the funding of the partnerships depends on local authorities and police forces working in partnership. Does the Home Secretary agree that local authorities are already underfunded, and that the measures that he has announced this year will lead to the police being underfunded? Although it is true that the number of police officers rose under the total period of the previous Conservative Government, it has fallen in the last few years. Does the Home Secretary agree that the number of police officers now is less than it was when he launched his "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" campaign?
I am interested in the crime reduction programme. Can the Home Secretary give an assurance that effective projects which started under the safer cities programme will continue and not be shelved?
Finally, is the Home Secretary seriously trying to tell people that CCTV cameras can replace the bobby on the beat?

Mr. Straw: To take the hon. Gentleman's last point first—which picks up a question asked by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—no one is suggesting that CCTV should replace officers on the beat; rather, we are suggesting that it complements their work. CCTV has been successful in reducing crime in town centres and housing estates because it is literally like having a police officer on the beat with eyes in the back of his or her head and it provides an incontrovertible record of what has happened. CCTV is enormously important in providing good evidence for the police for prosecutions, in acting as a significant deterrent—and, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen if he has been in control rooms—in enabling the police to deploy their resources far better than ever before, for example where disturbances occur late on a Friday or a Saturday night. The two are therefore complementary.
A choice has to be made at the margin about how the additional resources should be spent, and we do not resile from that. Such choices must be made on the basis of the best evidence. The hon. Gentleman—like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—picks up on the Conservative Government's record. It should be borne in mind that, when police numbers rose in the 1980s, we saw the largest rise in crime that Britain has ever experienced. We should consider whether there is the direct relationship between the number of police officers and the level of recorded crime that Opposition Members insinuate.
We accept that better co-ordination with other Departments is needed. The hon. Gentleman will know that health and education departments are partners at a local level in the crime and disorder partnerships, and we are working closely with the other Departments at a national level.
The hon. Gentleman asked me rashly to name the day when crime will be back to the 1979 level. I have not promised to do so, so I shall not take up his offer. However, I have been set the challenging target by the Prime Minister to bring vehicle crime down by 30 per cent. during the next five years, and I have been promised an imaginative career move if I fail.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was futile niggling of the kind that we have just heard from the Tory Front-Bench spokesman that led to the Conservative vote in my constituency falling to 4,000 at the general election, and to the total absence of Conservative councillors from Manchester city council? That is why my constituents look to my right hon. Friend to deal with the serious problems of crime from which they have been suffering all these years.
We welcome what my right hon. Friend said about burglaries, CCTV and so on, but my constituents will be looking most to the effect of the anti-social behaviour orders. Day after day I receive letters and approaches from constituents about rowdy gangs and abominable neighbours, including named people who move from street to street, causing havoc as they go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is right in saying that we will judge my right hon. Friend's announcements by the effects. Is he aware that we shall look to those effects to take away the terrible misery from which ordinary people suffer day after day as a result of such offences?

Mr. Straw: In place of a futile niggle, perhaps I may be allowed a sycophantic difference of emphasis from my right hon. Friend: surely the real reason for the fall in the Conservative vote in Gorton was the excellence of my right hon. Friend's reputation. Knowing my right hon. Friend as I do, I am surprised that there were even 4,000 Tory voters.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome of the anti-social behaviour orders which are built partly on the experience of the people in Manchester and Salford. I have visited many of the areas that have suffered in that way. I know that Manchester city council is one of the authorities that are preparing themselves for the introduction of the orders. It has one of the best records in the country of taking out injunctions against its


own tenants, but the orders are important because they will be available for use against people regardless of housing tenure.
My right hon. Friend is also correct that people are waiting for the beneficial effects of the orders. Their success will depend on the enthusiasm of the police and the local authorities in applying for orders and, in some cases, on the courage of local people in making applications to the police in the first place. It will also depend on how far the judiciary—magistrates and the Crown courts—are alert to the need to make those orders. I am pleased that we have had discussions with the Magistrates Association as well as with the higher judiciary to ensure that they understand the emphasis that the House has placed on the effectiveness of the orders.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Talking of Pauline conversions, will the Home Secretary accept that I will not unduly delay the House by reminding it of the number of times in the first year of this Parliament that he pooh-poohed the effectiveness of closed circuit television because the Chancellor would not give him any money? Now that the Chancellor has given him some money, he is all in favour of closed circuit television. I hope that this is the real Home Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman talked of outputs. Will he tell the House what reduction in burglary, car theft and anti-social behaviour he wants to achieve, and over what period, in order to feel that that use of the money has been justified, and that it has been money well spent in terms of law and order?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to tweak me on that point, but I did not pooh-pooh the value of closed circuit television at all. Indeed, I have been through all the times that I used to raise the matter with him when he sat on the Front Bench, and I raised it time after time. I could not come up with the money—here, he must take the admonition—because we did not have the money; we were following the Conservatives' spending plans and no money had been allocated. That is absolutely true and he knows it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what reduction in crime we anticipate. We are setting a national target for reduction in vehicle crime of 30 per cent., which is a substantial reduction and something on which we as a Government will be judged. In particular, I will be judged on that, especially if I fail, although I do not suppose that anybody will notice if I succeed. We have set a national target partly because the factors affecting vehicle crime often involve national policy—for example, the design of vehicles and co-operation in and co-ordination of policies by car park groups—to which vehicle crime is directly susceptible.
Burglary and robbery are much more susceptible to local strategies, which is why we have not set national targets. We are inviting local police and local communities to set those targets, and they are doing so, but we shall also judge the effectiveness of the individual programmes within the crime reduction programme—for example, that to reduce burglary—very carefully. If they

are not working according to the target that has been set for the individual programme we will withdraw the money from similar programmes.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I tell my right hon. Friend that communities all over my constituency and the rest of Birmingham will welcome the anti-social behaviour orders, which come into force from 1 April, alongside other more positive measures to encourage young people to live more fulfilling lives? However, does he agree that the critical ingredient in combating crime in our communities is not the number of police officers or, indeed, the level of resources that they have, important as they are, but the active involvement of people within communities in retrieving the safety and security that they have had stolen from them?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. If we do not have the communities on side, no amount of police officers or CCTV will solve the problem of disorder. Moreover, and to emphasise the point, we know that, where there are high levels of incivility in an area, the chance of people suffering, for example, a violent crime is four times greater than in other similar areas. If we deal with disorder, we can cut a great deal of crime.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Home Secretary seemed to come perilously close to suggesting that there was an inverse relationship between the number of police officers and the incidence of crime. In fact, the opposite is the case: there is a positive relationship between the number of police officers and the ability not only to prevent but to solve crimes.
Does the Home Secretary accept that much of what he said will not translate readily into provision for rural areas, where the incidence of closed circuit television cameras and the like will inevitably be low? It is the number of police officers that is instrumental. In Cambridgeshire, for example, only by maintaining the increased levels that have been accompanied by a substantial reduction in crime over the past couple of years can we achieve a further reduction.

Mr. Straw: Many rural areas have done very well out of the Budget increases that I announced earlier. For instance, Cambridgeshire—part of which the hon. Gentleman represents—has been allowed a 4.5 per cent. spending increase in the next year. That is more than adequate to maintain the number of police officers and to secure investment, especially given the efficiency savings we expect the police to make not as a result of the number of officers, but in a number of other areas in which the service has not been efficient in the past.
I did not suggest for a second that there was an inverse relationship between the number of police officers and the rise of crime under the last Administration. What I drew to the attention of thinking Conservatives, of whom I believe the hon. Gentleman to be one—[Interruption.] He went to a good school, same as me. Anyway, what I drew to the attention of thinking Conservatives was the fact that there was not necessarily a direct relationship. We have learned something from the Conservatives about the efficiency of public services; they seem to have forgotten what they learned about the same thing when they were in office.

Dr. George Turner: I welcome the general measures announced by my right hon. Friend,


but may I probe him beyond the distribution of cash? As he will know, my constituency, consisting of hundreds of square miles, is one of the most rural; but it has been at the forefront in using closed circuit television cameras in urban areas, which has helped the police to be more effective elsewhere. Does my right hon. Friend accept that his financial measures must address the deprivation in some of those urban areas? Does he also accept that, although crime may appear to be lowish in such counties as Norfolk, peaks of crime are hidden in the general average, which require every bit as much attention as crime in urban areas?

Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says, not least because I visited his constituency about 18 months ago. On a wet Friday evening in King's Lynn, 700 people turned up to hear me speak about law and order, which suggests either that they were very worried about the situation or that there was nothing else to do in King's Lynn. I trust that it was the first, not the second.
As I saw during that visit, there are indeed serious peaks of crime in some areas, which are disguised by the overall figures. I am pleased to say, however, that next year Norfolk will have a 5.5 per cent. increase in resources. That reflects our view of the importance of giving proper resources to semi-rural counties such as Norfolk.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I welcome the use of anti-social behaviour orders in the criminal justice system. Such orders, however, are not akin to civil injunctions, as the Home Secretary said; they are part of the criminal justice system. Is the right hon. Gentleman content that it is constitutionally appropriate for the police or applicant local authorities to play an active part in the sentencing process? Only they may consent to a reduction in the two-year period of an anti-social behaviour order, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at his own Act. Does he think it appropriate for the police and applicants to be party to sentencing? It would surely be more appropriate for that to be entirely in the gift of the courts.
On a previous occasion, the Home Secretary was kind enough to admit that the Conservative Government had done great things with regard to the introduction of closed circuit television. Will he, as a Labour politician, join me, as a Conservative politician, in kicking the back end of Oadby and Wigston Liberal Democrat borough council, and in inviting it to apply to his Government—it refused to apply to mine—for CCTV funding for the hard-pressed people of the borough?

Mr. Straw: I am always happy to take part with Conservatives in the re-education of the Liberal Democrats—on CCTV and many other subjects. Of course, one of the reasons why all of us—I hope—are sensitive to the issue of anti-social behaviour and to problems of law and order is because of the constituency link. I make that point just in case anyone is thinking otherwise.
I acknowledge and commend the previous Government's work, for example, on safer cities. There is little point in calling into question the record of a previous Administration where we support it. I do not intend to do that.
I do not accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the structure of the anti-social behaviour orders. The only point where, as it were, the applicant—the local authority or police—could play a part in what he describes as the sentencing process under the orders, is where there is an application to the court to lift the order within the two-year minimum period, but the order itself is not a sentence of the court. A sentence of the court arises only if there is a breach of the order. That is an arrestable offence. A breach of an order will be dealt with in the normal way for either-way offences. The police and local authorities will play no direct part in the sentence that either the magistrates or the Crown court judge hands down.

Mr. David Taylor: May I in the warmest terms congratulate the Home Secretary on his statement on crime reduction? I do so as a member of the Magistrates Association, as former chair of the North-West Leicestershire Safer Communities Forum, a forerunner of the statutory partnerships, and as chair of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch CCTV scheme, which installed cameras in that town.
It is true that the existence of cameras can have a positive effect. Does my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that there is a need to look at the dispersal of crime that can arise with CCTV, and to tackle peripheral issues such as improving street lighting in car parks, so that the quality of the image that is produced by the camera is satisfactory? Does he accept that local authorities that are cash strapped—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That is far too long. Mr. Straw.

Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Let me make it clear that not all the money need be spent directly on CCTV. As my hon. Friend says, if CCTV is to be effective, other things have to be done as well—for example, improvements in street lighting and action to ensure that crime is not displaced. One of the good things about the latest round of cash for CCTV is that it will be available, for example, on housing estates to which some acquisitive crime may have been displaced by CCTV in town centres.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Home Secretary ensure that rural areas get their fair share of any money that is available? The money should go not just to areas such as Longridge in my constituency, to finance CCTV and other schemes, but to rural parts—of the right hon. Gentleman's constituency; of Lancaster, Burnley and Pendle; and all round our area. Rural areas need their fair share of the money as well.
I know that the Home Secretary has a reputation for being a hard Home Secretary and I believe him to be so.

Mr. Straw: What?

Mr. Evans: It is a compliment. Having that sort of reputation, the Home Secretary may not be popular with many Labour Members, but may I encourage him not only have a reputation for being hard, but to be hard where he has not been so far? Boot camps have proved very successful. Will he look again at that idea? A rigorous


and firm regime is the only language that some thugs can understand. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider establishing a boot camp in the north-west.

Mr. Straw: I did not hear the first consonant when the hon. Gentleman said "hard", and various alternative expressions were running through my mind. I accept, of course, what he said about the importance of rural areas being covered by the provisions: it is a mistake to believe that only urban areas have high crime levels. Although crime is disturbing wherever it occurs, a sudden upsurge of serious disorder or acquisitive crime in a peaceful rural area can be very disturbing. I shall certainly give an undertaking to ensure that the money is used across the country. Which areas benefit from it will depend on the quality of bids. I hope that Ribble Valley district council—to name one council—will be able to make a high-quality bid.
I feel that the debate on the precise form of detention, punishment and treatment of young offenders is not served simply by attaching to it the label "boot camp". None of the so-called boot camps in the United Kingdom, whether at Thorn Cross or at Colchester, bears any relationship to the boot camps that I have seen in the United States, which are of a totally different order.
We need tough and effective punishments, and a range of punishments. We have kept going the so-called boot camp at Thorn Cross because it has turned out to be successful. I closed the facility at Colchester only because of its cost, not because of a judgment about its effectiveness.

Mr. Tony McWalter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the substantial resources that he has been able to extract from the Chancellor to achieve the laudable aims that he has described. I should like also to associate myself with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in commending the general drift of the Home Secretary's strategy. However, may I tell my right hon. Friend that it is difficult to give the document unqualified support when it has been impossible to read the detailed guidance on anti-social behaviour orders? Although I have seen in his hand a copy of the document—it looks very nice—copies are not in the Vote Office as he said they were. When my right hon. Friend and I last had a little discussion on these issues—when a world cup football match was on—we were almost the only two hon. Members in the Chamber. On that occasion, too, the guidelines were not available.
My query concerns the possibility of people maliciously accusing other people of behaving anti-socially, and of insufficient resources or detection methods being available to ensure that such malicious claims are rooted out. I have had several such cases in my

own constituency. I should be grateful if the guidelines can be made readily available, so that we may assess whether those points have been dealt with.

Mr. Straw: If—as I now appreciate—the document is not available in the Vote Office, I can only apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House. I shall take action to find out why it is not available.
There is a very powerful filter in the body of the Act itself to ensure that malicious claims are not made. It is not possible for any individual who feels that he or she has suffered serious anti-social behaviour directly to make an application for an anti-social behaviour order. An application would have to be made by the chief officer of police in the area or the chief executive of the local authority—and I am sure that they will take very careful action to filter out malicious cases. If they fail to do so in any individual isolated case, we shall expect—I believe that it will happen—the courts to filter out such claims as are made.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that many people have noticed the success of his policies and that, certainly in Battersea, police and many of the community partners in crime reduction strategies will greatly welcome today's announcement? The Opposition's obsession with what they call a declining police service is unfounded, and no one but Opposition Front Benchers would call a 0.5 per cent. fluctuation in police numbers a service decline. Yesterday, we even had the spectacle of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) describing as a decline in police numbers what turned out to be a reduction of four police officers that was more than offset by an increase in seven police staff.
Not only are the Conservatives' claims not true: they are not relevant. There is no evidence of a direct relationship between the incidence of crime and police numbers. As the document "Reducing Offending", to which my right hon. Friend referred, says, what really affects crime statistics is effective policing, targeted on criminals and victims.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. Reports by the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary show that there is no direct relationship between the gross number of police officers and the number of officers available for operational duties. One of the complaints of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, who are all experienced former senior professional police officers, is that while the overall number of officers has risen in recent years, the number available for operational duties has stayed static or declined. That has to change. That will be achieved through better management, better deployment, often civilianisation, the use of information technology and getting a grip—as the previous Administration failed to do—on the fact that early retirements and excessively high levels of sickness make a difference to whether the police are effective on the ground.

Millennium Compliance

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am announcing today the results of the fifth quarterly review of progress in tackling the millennium bug for Government Departments, agencies and key parts of the wider public sector. I have arranged for all completed questionnaires to be placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet. To allow people to see at a glance how well individual Departments and agencies are doing, I shall also be publishing tables illustrating their performance against a number of key criteria.
Good progress continues to be made by central Government as a whole. The majority of bodies covered by the exercise are near to completing their correction programmes. Almost half the Departments and agencies have completed their work on business-critical information technology systems, which means that the problems have been fixed, the fix has been tested and the system is back in operation. Progress on business-critical embedded and telecommunications systems is equally good. On that basis, we expect that most Departments will have finished work on their business-critical systems by July. Ten bodies—although admittedly smaller ones—report that have already completed all their correction work on critical and non-critical systems. I am also pleased by the continued progress of the Department of Social Security, the Employment Service, the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Costs remain relatively stable. The total estimate for central Government Departments and agencies stands at just over £420 million—a 2.5 per cent. increase on the previous quarter.
I am pleased to report that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Inland Revenue and the Medicines Control Agency, which I named in my previous statement, have made significant improvements over the past quarter.
Slippage continues to be apparent in other cases, although most are minor adjustments of a month or two in the first half of this year. However, I have a number of specific concerns about departmental programmes, including that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although I acknowledge the unique difficulties that it faces in operating around the world. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary assures me that the serious resources that the FCO is devoting to its year 2000 programme and relevant system upgrades will ensure that it is year 2000 compliant worldwide in time. I have written to colleagues to express those concerns and will continue to monitor progress closely.
The armed forces continue to make good progress in dealing with the bug. The Ministry of Defence expects that the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force front-line units will be compliant by late summer. However, there remains no room for slippage in the large and complex defence programme. I am providing more detailed information on the Ministry of Defence's programme in a separate section of the tables that I am publishing today.
I am pleased to report that work is also now well under way on business continuity planning. Departments are looking at the impact of possible bug-related failures—

in their systems and in key organisations in their supply chain—on their ability to continue to deliver key services. Most Departments and agencies have initial business continuity plans in place. Those that do not are required to produce one as a matter of urgency. Those initial plans will be developed and tested over the year. Details of progress in developing initial plans are available in the published returns.
All but five Departments and agencies have had some form of additional assessment of their programmes, either by internal auditors or by external experts. Of the remainder, all have plans in place for such assessments.
In the wider public sector, the returns for British Nuclear Fuels, the BBC, National Air Traffic Services, London Transport, the Bank of England, the Post Office and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland show that all are continuing to make good progress. In my last statement, I expressed concern about the Environment Agency's rate of progress in tackling the bug in its business-critical embedded systems. I am pleased to report that this work is now 90 per cent. complete, and is on course to be finished by the end of June.
Progress across the police service is mainly satisfactory, although a few forces have completion dates for business-critical systems in the second half of 1999. However, progress on business continuity planning is disappointing. Twenty-seven of the 46 forces in England and Wales do not yet have an initial business continuity plan in place.
The Association of Chief Police Officers' millennium co-ordination committee is monitoring progress closely, and its chairman has written to chief constables recently to raise issues of concern. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is continuing to review individual forces' year 2000 arrangements and identify areas for improvement. A similar process is taking place in Scotland.
The returns for the fire service in England and Wales show an improvement over the previous quarter. All brigades expect to complete work by the end of the year, although a few do not expect to complete work until the final quarter of 1999, allowing little room for slippage. Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate will continue to monitor progress closely and offer brigades advice. Brigades in Scotland are moving forward on a similar time scale.
The results of the most recent NHS quarterly review in England were announced on 16 February. The number of organisations reporting good or satisfactory progress was slightly down on the previous quarter, at 91 per cent. However, 98 per cent. of NHS trusts and heath authorities met the NHS executive's deadline of 31 December 1998 for having identified and resourced effective solutions for all year 2000 problems that could pose a threat to patient safety. The estimated cost of remedial year 2000 work remains at about £320 million. The NHS in Scotland and Wales is also making satisfactory progress.
The Audit Commission's latest analysis of progress across local government in England and Wales shows that the situation as a whole is slowly improving, but that much more work remains to be done. The new teams in Government offices, announced by the Prime Minister on 25 January, are working with the Audit Commission and the Local Government Association to help authorities, particularly those that are furthest behind, to prioritise their programmes and to access advice and good practice.
The picture in Scotland is similarly mixed, and I am pleased that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Accounts Commission for Scotland are progressing work with Scottish local authorities.
Over the last quarter, we have taken steps to put in place a rigorous and independent assessment programme for those elements of the public sector that are key elements of our national infrastructure. These assessments will include the NHS, local government, emergency services, the criminal justice system and the payment of benefits and will reinforce our existing monitoring arrangements. This will give us one of the most—if not the most—objective and comprehensive monitoring regimes in the world. I shall report on progress in my next quarterly statement. From June, I shall be backing that up with more regular reports to Parliament.
With less than 300 days to go until the century date change, it is important that Departments and agencies make the fullest and best use of the remaining time available. Looking at the overall picture, the vast majority are well placed to finish work on business-critical systems in good time. However, in a few areas, a concerted effort is required to ensure that the remaining work is finished to time. We will be also placing an ever-increasing emphasis on business continuity planning as we move through the rest of the year.
The Government will continue to lead by example, by making information on our progress in beating the bug regularly available to the House, and to the public.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the President of the Council for her statement on the findings of the Government's fifth quarterly review of progress—or should I say slippage?—in tackling the millennium bug. Will she confirm that it describes the situation as it is today and is not an historical statement referring to forms filled in by Departments many weeks ago?
Today' s announcement shows that the Government are breathtakingly complacent in the face of their own failure. While they continue to fail to meet their own previously published deadlines, they have the gall to preach to the private sector on the subject. They inherited a golden legacy of action and preparation from the Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) had set a deadline for all Departments to be millennium compliant by the end of December 1998.
The previous report showed that the United Kingdom had slipped from first to eighth position under the Labour Government. Can the President of the Council confirm that the United Kingdom is once again leading the field in year 2000 preparedness, as it was in May 1997?
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), when Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said:
I am now able to confirm that all Departments and agencies have work in hand and scheduled for completion in time—many by December 1998, a majority by March 1999 and a small number later in 1999."—[Official Report, 27 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 1104.]
Today, in March 1999, we learn that fewer than half the Departments have even completed their work on business-critical systems—what a disappointing outcome—and that only 10 Departments met the Conservative deadline of completing all millennium compliance work by December 1998.
The President of the Council promised three months ago that all Departments and agencies would have business continuity and contingency plans in place by the end of January. Today, she has told us only that most Departments have them in place. What is the reason for the failure to meet that deadline? Will she ensure that the plans, once produced, are made available for public scrutiny and placed in the Library?
With the millennium fewer than 300 days away, has the time not come for more targeted reports? I welcome the announcement that there will be more frequent reports. Will the President of the Council expand on the nature of those reports, especially in the light of her statement, which gives a worrying picture of the state of preparedness in the police and fire services and in part of the health service?
Will the Government offer a millennium guarantee, that everything in the public sector will work properly on 1 January 2000? If things go wrong in the public sector, who is to be held to account? Will the President of the Council publish a list of Ministers and officials who will be in line for the plaudits or criticisms arising from their Y2K preparedness?
Who is to be held accountable in local government? Will the President of the Council arrange for all critical systems to have live testing before the millennium, as was suggested by several organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses? Will she advise private business and individuals how much they should spend on their contingency plans? It is one thing to draw up a plan, but another to decide, on a risk assessment, how much should be invested in it.
In April 1998, the Prime Minister said:
By treating this as an emergency we can make Britain one of the world's best prepared countries.
Can we be satisfied that the Government are really treating this as an emergency, when the statement has been delayed by a fortnight and relegated to third priority in today's business? I assure the House that Her Majesty's Opposition will continue to hold the Government to account and responsible for Y2K failure, if and when it comes.

Mrs. Beckett: Oh, dear. I had hoped that there was a vague chance of an intelligent response from the Conservative Front Bench, but that was clearly a mistake.
I will begin where the hon. Gentleman ended. He asked who should be held to account if anything goes wrong, and I will tell him. I am not in the business of dishing out blame, and I pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). He did a great deal—although nothing like enough, because his Government colleagues showed no interest in his work. We picked up not a golden legacy, but a neglected baton and trebled, at least, the work that was being done. If anybody will be held to account, it will be those who were in government in 1994, 1995 and 1996, when the issues should first have been dealt with.
With the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, nobody in the Conservative party wanted to know. If we are going to dish out blame, it belongs to the Conservative Government. We did not come to power until May 1997, and anybody who knows anything about the subject knows that that was very late in the day to tackle the issues.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I can conclude only that he knows nothing about the subject. I am surprised, because he has asked some moderately intelligent questions about it in his time, but he clearly has not listened to any of the answers. He made the throwaway remark that Britain had slipped from first to eighth in the international league tables, but, if he knew anything about the subject and had read any of the answers that he had received from us or anyone else, he would know that those league tables are worthless. If a country that knows little or cares nothing about the issue responds by saying that it is doing well—because it does not recognise the problem—it soars up the league table. Everybody knows that the league tables are worthless.
I share the regret of the hon. Member for Christchurch that not all Departments have, as instructed, business continuity plans in place. Most have, and those that have not are being actively pursued. As for advice for the private sector, I thought that the Conservatives were against the nanny state. It is not for me to tell those in the private sector what judgment they should make about their preparedness or what they should spend. It is for us to urge them to take the necessary action, and that we are doing.
We have considered the suggestions that have been made for live testing, including those from someone on the Conservative Benches whom I respect, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). However, such testing would consume enormous amounts of time and resources and would be a diversion from work on tackling the issues. For that reason, it has not been pursued by the Government or by most other organisations that have studied the matter.
I have told the hon. Member for Christchurch before that this statement has not been deferred for two weeks. The previous statement was a week early in the cycle. Last week, the statement would have coincided with the Budget and we thought, on balance, that the House would probably prefer to give the Budget a higher priority.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could give a millennium guarantee that nothing will go wrong. Only someone who was not paying attention or does not care tuppence about the importance of understanding the issue would even ask such a silly question, let alone expect an answer to it.

Mr. Brian White: As someone who has already suffered from the millennium bug when using a Microsoft product, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Many local authorities have made progress, but some have not. Has my right hon. Friend considered secondments from those authorities that have made progress or using Government officers to help local authorities to make more progress? I was very concerned by my right hon. Friend's comments about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In particular, many third-world countries will suffer if supply chains—many of which are just in time now—break down. What is being done to ensure that the third world does not suffer because of the millennium bug? The Soviet fleet contains computers that are non-compliant and I would be worried if the Ministry of Defence were not talking to its Russian counterparts about the issue.
My right hon. Friend said that she would introduce more frequent reports from June. Given that, on 1 April, in 15 days' time, the year 2000 financial year will start, will she start those more frequent reports from the cycle onwards?

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's concern, as we all do, that there has not been more progress in local government, and we are working closely with the Audit Commission, which is considering that matter. We are considering issues such as secondments from Government offices, and we are strongly encouraging those in local government who lag behind to learn from the best practice of the leaders in the field. The Audit Commission has said that, in or around June, it will publish the particulars of authorities that are not responding well enough to encouragement.
My hon. Friend asked about the third world. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken a number of steps, along with the British Council, to conduct seminars, provide advice and do what can be done directly by British diplomats. We have given resources to the World bank project and to the Commonwealth to assist in encouraging compliance and in helping to fund the right kind of programmes in third-world countries.
My hon. Friend also asked about Russia. The Ministry of Defence has formed a co-operation committee with other member states, including NATO states. Advice, assistance and support are being given. We are being proactive with the Russians. We have offered to send a delegation to Moscow to discuss the issues. We support moves by NATO to engage Russia through the Permanent Joint Council mechanism and we are working supportively with the United States and others to offer advice.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Health and Safety Executive in Bedfordshire has reasonably pointed out that private businesses should be careful to check on the effects of the millennium bug—particularly embedded effects—that may have an impact on health and safety. However, an article in The Business magazine, which covered that aspect, gave little indication that guidance was being offered on what to look for and how to do so. Can the right hon. Lady satisfy us that the HSE and similar agencies will give constructive advice as well as warnings?

Mrs. Beckett: Certainly, they are seeking to do so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has concerns, Action 2000, among other organisations, would be happy to hear from him and to do all it could to supply information. One reason why I was fairly hard on his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Christchurch, was that, as time has gone by, people have discovered more complications. When work began on compliance, the importance of problems that might arise from embedded systems was not as greatly appreciated as it is today. As work unfolds, ever more aspects emerge. The problem is complex, but Action 2000 and other organisations would be happy to assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Can the President of the Council give us an idea of the likely total cost of the problem? She mentioned £420 million for Government


Departments and £320 million for the health service. However, those are compliance costs only, and they do not include the cost for local government or the costs of failure. Have the Government identified a range of possible outturns? We have already reached £1 billion, and the total cost will probably be billions of pounds.
Will the right hon. Lady say something about air traffic control? There are already enough difficulties with computers in that area before we have even reached 2000. There is genuine concern among the travelling public, not only about how airlines will handle the millennium, but about how the air traffic control system will function. Have the Government taken a view on whether they will need to act to control flying at the year change?
Some 27 of the 46 police forces in England and Wales have no initial business continuity plan; does the right hon. Lady agree that that is alarming? The police forces will be in the front line, facing the consequences of failure. How can they know what those consequences will cost, or how they will handle them? What about reports that the Government have instructed cancellation of all police leave, booked the armed forces and put the Territorial Army on standby? Is that true, or is it just press rumour?
Do the Government have any idea of the costs and practical implications of external failures that may impact on the public sector, such as failures in the private sector, among the utilities or in the telecommunications systems?
Finally, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer wise to announce a cut in the standard rate of income tax of one penny when there is so much uncertainty about the possible impact of failures resulting from the millennium bug and so much uncertainty about the eventual cost to the public sector, let alone the private sector?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked several questions, including some about financial consequences, on which I had best say that I shall write to him. However, let me warn him at the outset that I am not sure how much value there will be in any attempt to attach a figure, especially to the potential consequences of failure. I shall certainly look at the range of assessments available and write to him with such information as we can make available. He will be the first to appreciate that it is quite difficult to provide such information, especially when one considers the impact across the private sector. In addition, we are talking about programmes that, in the case of those that have been more forward looking, began as long ago as 1994 or earlier, so there is a wide range of potential effects.
The hon. Gentleman asked about aviation and air transport millennium compliance, which international and domestic aviation authorities are keeping under close review. Foremost in their minds is, and will remain, the safety of the public. Various audits and surveys are being undertaken, although I believe that none has yet been completed and many have to take commercial confidentiality into consideration. However, the assessments are being undertaken and, for our part, we shall make available such information as we can give.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the police services. I share his concern, as does the inspectorate of constabulary, that the police have not made more progress

on this matter. The Government have not given instructions on the subject of leave—I do not believe that we are in a position to give instructions to chief constables on such operational matters—but I understand that many forces have cancelled millennium leave, for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman describes. The public celebration is expected to be extremely large and of unusually long duration, and both factors have an impact on preparedness.
No action has been taken to make extra plans, such as to have Territorial Army units on standby. There are normal preparations that have been made for potential emergencies and civil contingencies, and the length and the scale of the holiday are, and have been for some time, factored into those plans. It is not anticipated that other, wildly exceptional plans need to be made, but that is kept continually under review.

Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that report. I am pleased by the progress made in the Department of Social Security, which will go a long way towards alleviating the fears of pensioners, including the 13,000 pensioners in my constituency who doubt that they will receive any cheques in January 2000. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to keep that not particularly computer-literate section of our society informed?

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I shall. Like my hon. Friend, I recognise the great concern felt by many in society that that sort of basic service should be available. She will be pleased to learn that 99 per cent. of correction work on DSS systems is complete and that all those matters are subject to review and independent assessment. As we draw nearer the relevant date, we are all anxious to ensure that the normal services on which people rely and on which they expect to be able to rely will be available to them, without any material disruption.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I hope that my right hon. Friend has checked with the breweries that they will be all right on new year's eve.
On a more serious note, when we entered office on 1 May 1997, we found not a single paper on Microsoft's millennium compliance; I am not sure what sort of legacy that was. Sixty of Microsoft's leading products were not millennium compliant, but there was nothing to tell us that on 1 May 1997. I welcome the news on the tables, as that was a matter that I raised before; I shall look at them shortly.
However, to return to something that my right hon. Friend says that she will not do, may I offer her some information? The Wall street stock exchange has now done two practice days on Saturday mornings, and the results have been rather worrying. The stock exchange is concerned—its last practice day was three weeks ago—and I urge my right hon. Friend to revisit the idea of having even one Department test 10 per cent. of the system and wind it forward on a Saturday, Sunday or a bank holiday. Many people are also concerned about the 9 September 1999 date.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the lack of preparedness that we discovered on coming to office. The first proper survey across Government was


undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who was then Minister for the Cabinet Office, immediately after the general election.
I am afraid that I cannot undertake to supervise the breweries—many other people will be doing that, so I feel confident that I will not need to give them my personal attention. My hon. Friend asked about compliance testing, and I do not rule that out. However, I was asked specifically by the hon. Member for Christchurch—the matter has been raised from time to time—whether we should have a national test day on which everyone should test everything simultaneously. I see from my hon. Friend's reaction that he shares the general advice that we have been given that such an exercise would divert valuable resources and would be unlikely to assist us.
I am slightly surprised to learn that Wall street has experienced such difficulties. In most countries—including the United Kingdom—the financial sectors came into contact with the problem at the earliest possible opportunity because of roll-over dates, credit cards and other things that are forward dated. As a consequence, those sectors have probably done the most work in this area from the earliest time. The United Kingdom financial sector has completed a great deal of testing, supervision and other work, but we continue to review its readiness.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Lady is extremely good at castigating. However, she is on rocky ground in so doing—particularly in view of the fact that, on gaining office, the Government moved from TaskForce 2000 to Action 2000 and did nothing for six months. The responsibility for millennium compliance shifted from the Cabinet Office to the Department of Trade and Industry and then to the Leader of the House—that is three Departments of State in almost as many months.
Has the right hon. Lady read the recommendations made by Eurim, the European Informatics Market group, which is an all-party group of the House? If she has not, perhaps she will refer to the next edition of The House Magazine, which is to be published on Monday. It will contain an article by me and others—perhaps even the right hon. Lady will contribute—about those recommendations. The Government must examine standards and ensure that the solutions offered on the market have been approved by someone—the Government or perhaps a body sanctioned by them could perform that role—so that people will know what they can do to assist.
Will the Leader of the House also inform the House whether the money that the Government have put aside for Departments will be sufficient? At the outset, the Government estimated how much millennium compliance would cost—they decided on just under £1 billion—and the Departments did not receive a penny extra for their computer budgets. Departments have had to cope with the problem using their existing budgets, but surely extra resources will ultimately be necessary.

Mrs. Beckett: I must say to the hon. Gentleman—who follows these matters closely—that I think he is being both unwise and unfair. I did not set out to castigate:

the hon. Member for Christchurch made a very silly attempt to pretend that anything that goes wrong will be the Government's fault. That is nonsense.

Mr. Chope: It is called responsibility.

Mrs. Beckett: That is stupid, and the hon. Gentleman knows it—at least, I think he does.
I am perfectly prepared to recognise that the previous Government did some work—but, I fear, not nearly enough, given that we did not come to power until May 1997. I am perfectly happy to deal with this issue on a non-partisan basis. Few people recognise the scale and the nature of the problems and the extent of the work that will be required to tackle them from the outset. I do not blame the previous Government for the fact that we inherited a very difficult situation. However, I certainly will not accept blame on behalf of this Government because of the Conservatives' neglect at the end of the 1990s. Opposition Members should stop being unwise. Rather than making silly partisan points, they should concentrate on what we can do together to ensure that there are no problems. Our constituents will face difficulties if there are problems.
The hon. Gentleman also made a point that has been repeatedly made and corrected. It is rubbish to say that nothing was done for six months. We did not renew the contract of TaskForce 2000—if I remember correctly, the previous Government gave it about £750,000—but we set up a new body to proceed with the campaign of awareness on which TaskForce 2000 had been set to work. We gave the body a budget of more than £18 million at the outset, and that has been increased. The notion that we fell down on the work plainly does not remotely stand up to the evidence.
I have not seen the recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I am certainly happy to consider it. He is right to say that we are all anxious about the standard of work being done, and I shall consider the report carefully. Although it is not for the Government to second-guess standards in such matters, we should certainly ensure that good-quality advice is available. We have done that, and we are doing everything possible to publicise that information, and will continue to do so.
I urge Conservative Members to work with the Government on a problem that is, strictly speaking, nobody's fault, and certainly not the fault of any political party. I am happy to work on that basis, and I hope that they are too.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about millennium compliance of people on benefits in my constituency? She made a point about the Employment Service. Will she confirm that its business-critical systems are finished? Does she agree that they are important as a delivery agent for benefits?
The Opposition tried to put the blame on the Government, when they should be taking the blame. In the Public Accounts Committee on Monday, we heard a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General, who said that a system that was introduced under the previous Government as late as April 1997 was not millennium compliant. Is that not an indictment of the total hypocrisy that we have heard from Conservative Members today?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right: the Conservative party's record does not bear examination of


the kind that Conservative Members seek. I do not have at my fingertips the figures for the work of the Employment Service, but it has made considerable progress, as has the Department of Social Security. I should be happy to write to my hon. Friend, or he will find in the Library the tables and more details than I can give here today.

Mr. William Thompson: When the right hon. Lady made her statement, no mention was made of Northern Ireland, particularly when referring to the police service, the fire service, the national health service and local government in England, Wales and Scotland. As the millennium bug is as likely to strike Northern Ireland as the rest of the United Kingdom, will the right hon. Lady tell us the position on those important services in Northern Ireland?

Mrs. Beckett: I singled out for mention those areas that gave us concern and those areas that have done especially well. The great mass of Departments that come between those two groups are those where work is being done, and we are assured—and the evidence suggests—that they will be compliant within the time scale set by the Government.
In my previous statement, I singled out as areas of concern the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. Both had problems with their embedded chip programmes, and the Department of Finance and Personnel also had a late completion date for its critical IT systems. Both now tell us that they expect to complete their correction work on business-critical embedded systems in June, and the completion date for the other critical IT systems has also been brought forward to June.
Work is being undertaken and monitored, and we have not had flagged up as an area of anxiety the particular services that cause the hon. Gentleman concern.

Dr. George Turner: The House heard reference to league tables. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only league tables on this issue that will have any validity are those that will be published in the new millennium, revealing what problems we encounter? Does she further accept that there will be problems because there is not one millennium bug, but a set of problems, and it would be a waste of resources if there were no problems? We must ensure that certain consequences do not occur. We must make sure that there is no loss of human life or breakdown in society's main functions. It is therefore very important that those who have responsibility for acting in time realise now that they will be held to account when the league tables are published in the new millennium. Although there will be problems, we want to be certain that they are minor and unimportant.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, I notice that someone from the Institute of Grocery Distribution said that of course there would be problems, but
You have to separate it out between the millennium party effect and the bug effect.
That was a very pertinent comment.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: from the outset, the top priority not just of the Government but of all those who deal with public services has been public safety and avoidance of material disruption, including, of course, issues such as loss of life. He is also right in saying that, in the ordinary course of events, particularly during the winter, we all expect various small-scale difficulties and breakdowns. It is important that we all do our utmost to ensure that such difficulties are no worse over this Christmas and new year than they have been over any other.

Miss Anne McIntosh: My contention is that the right hon. Lady is not doing enough in the private sector, especially to combat the lack of transport insurance for travel on 1 January 2000. She is aware that the private sector is failing to insure air and rail travel on that day. I urge her not to absolve the Government of all responsibility, but to act, not just so that passengers can travel but so that facilities to travel by air and rail are provided.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not in the business of trying to walk on water; I cannot say that, of course, there will be facilities for air and rail travel. I certainly assure the hon. Lady that we, together with all relevant regulators, companies and bodies, are doing everything that we can to ensure that whatever facilities are made available are safe.
I know that the hon. Lady has concerns about insurers; she and I have corresponded about that matter. There is a mixed picture. Insurers are prepared to cover eventualities that people cannot foresee, but some policies in some companies have exclusions. I know that my civil servants will curse me for saying this, but I would be very happy if the hon. Lady encouraged those who have contacted her to contact us. It slightly surprises me that she has raised the issues with me as a matter of major concern to those in the travel industry, but those concerned have not raised them with us or, indeed, with Action 2000. If there are widespread concerns, we would obviously be very happy to hear about them and do anything that we could to attempt to address them.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Has the right hon. Lady received a report from her hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who visited Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency today, where I hope he will have found a model of activity in respect of millennium compliance? I think that he visited the Rosie maternity hospital as well—where, for example, there are contingent risks of unanticipated demand associated with the millennium. Perhaps such risks should be anticipated. In the next few weeks, the hospital will have had to establish the staffing, pay and associated costs that will be involved. It would take the view that, rather than a Dutch auction between public services on available staff compensation, some Government guidance would be useful.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was impressed by the work undertaken at Addenbrooke's hospital—as always, since the hospital has a very high reputation—although, if I heard him correctly, I also understand that much of it was not undertaken or did not begin until two or three years ago. With the benefit of hindsight, one might have hoped


that the hospital had begun earlier, although that applies in very many quarters. The assessment of likely costs and service needs and how they can be met, which the hon. Gentleman seeks, is being made. We are of course considering how those issues relate to the private sector.
I say to the hon. Gentleman—with respect, this is not an attacking point—that Conservative Members are often keen for the Government not to interfere when they say that it is, strictly speaking, not the Government's business. Although I am always keen to encourage development organisations to make the right preparations, to take account of the right factors and to obtain information to enable them to make judgments about the cover that they will need, the arrangements that they should make and what costs they should anticipate covering, I am reluctant to get involved in too much second-guessing of what is required in a particular locality. The Government do keep these matters under review and, if guidance is sought, we endeavour to give what guidance we can.

European Commission

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, during the Prime Minister's statement, he made an important statement with respect to a view that he attributed to me. This is an important matter, given that, no doubt, many millions of people were listening to or watching the statement relating to the European Commission and the crisis that it has created. He said with reference to me:
He believes that Britain should not be a member of the European Union at all. That is his position.
I have never made such a statement. I have never argued or stated that the United Kingdom should not be a member of the European Union, and I should be grateful if you would let me know whether you received a statement from the Prime Minister retracting that statement. If you have not done so, may I request that such a statement be made, retracting the allegation against me, and that it be placed on the record in the House of Commons, together with a personal apology?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised is not one for the Chair, but he has helped to put the record straight anyway. The hon. Gentleman knows his way around the procedures of the House, and I am sure that he will be able to take up the matter with the Prime Minister personally.

Prevention of Delay in Trials

Miss Anne McIntosh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that a person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes.
As I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the 110-day rule exists under Scots law and states that, if a person is taken into custody, their trial must commence within 110 days. If not, that person must be released. In common law, there is no time for commencing an action brought by the Crown. Therefore, a prosecution may be commenced at any time after the alleged offence.
Reform would avoid the current problem of people being detained in custody for an indefinite period. Delays are particularly regrettable when those people are acquitted when they eventually come to trial.
Statistics show that, in Scotland, the number of prisoners on remand decreased by 9 per cent. in 1996–97, whereas England and Wales experienced a 3 per cent. increase in 1998 compared to 1997. From Home Office figures provided, provisional information for 26 February 1999 showed that 12,627 people were held on remand in prisons in England and Wales. That figure has actually increased in the 18 months since 28 October 1997, when I first introduced the Bill.
The Government have said that they want to reduce the time before offenders are brought to trial, particularly for young offenders. There are especially strong reasons to push for strict time limits in relation to young offenders. The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales was set up on 30 September under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to monitor the operation of the youth justice system.
Recent figures provided to me by the Home Office show that 11 per cent. of those aged 10 to 13 who are granted bail—and 13 per cent. of those aged 14 to 17—failed to answer that bail. The point is that young people are two or three times more likely than adults to offend while on court bail.
North Yorkshire is one of the areas successful in bidding for the Youth Justice Board's development fund to improve the support and supervision of young people on bail. Thirteen million pounds of grants is available, so obviously there is a problem with young offenders. We need to make them turn up in court when they are supposed to do so.
Coming to court is often the most stressful and disruptive occasion in many people's lives. To keep them waiting in custody without a definite time limit is unacceptable to the prosecution and the defence. Allowing trials to be brought at an early date assists witnesses in presenting evidence before poor memory fudges the strength of the case against the accused.
The Home Office has produced an introductory guide to statutory time limits as envisaged in sections 43 and 45 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Those sections amend section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and introduce two new sections to that Act in order to set time limits to help reduce delays in the criminal justice system. However, those new time limits will be set by regulation under the 1985 Act only following consultation and pilot studies and once new procedures for case preparation and management are in place. Time limits

pilots will run for 12 months from this autumn but will not be implemented nationally in England and Wales until January 2001.
That situation is totally unacceptable. The fact that Scotland should have a humanitarian yet strict provision for all trials to be brought within 110 days, setting a clear, easily applied uniform standard, while England and Wales have no current statutory right but the promise of various different changing time limits depending on the age of the accused, the severity of the crime and the ability of police to bring charges in time, will lead to a chaotic justice system and an administrative, bureaucratic, penal nightmare.
Let us today bring the Government and the Home Office to their senses. The 110-day rule is not some peculiar Scottish concept but a vital safeguard protecting the civil liberties of those detained by the police. Scots law provides a simple, comprehensive, easy-to-administer procedure; let England and Wales now follow suit.
Let me share with the House the wide-ranging support that I have received in introducing the Bill. In 1998, Richard Braithwaite, convenor of Ripon diocesan board of social responsibility penal affairs sub-committee, said:
I am delighted that you will persist with
the Bill.
I have found that your Bill inherently attracts the support of most Church people as well as Liberal Democrats and their ilk.
More recently, Mr. Braithwaite said:
You are on a winner here and I think you should push it as hard as possible. Labour soon changes its mind when it sees political advantage!
Reverend Roderick Hamer of St. John's church, London said in June 1998:
I have a particular concern for young people remanded in custody, particularly when, on appearance in court, they are either given a non-custodial sentence or indeed not convicted at all. The young are, I am sure you would agree, particularly vulnerable to the pressures you describe.
In June 1998, in a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, the prison chaplaincy team at Her Majesty's Prison, Hedon road, Hull, wrote:
As a Prison Chaplaincy Team we hope you"—
the Deputy Prime Minister—
will support the Bill. We agree with Anne McIntosh that there should be a limit to the time a prisoner can be remanded in custody.
In May 1998, the Ripon diocesan board for social responsibility wrote to all its parishes:
Those remanded in custody add to our already overcrowded prisons; when they come to trial many are found Not Guilty and released, and some of those who are convicted are not given a custodial sentence. Recent figures indicate that more than half of all male prisoners on remand (56 per cent.) and almost three-quarters of female remand prisoners (71 per cent.) were not given a custodial sentence. More than a fifth (23 per cent. of males and 20 per cent. of women) were actually acquitted.
The stress of being on remand is very considerable. In 1995 there were 55 self-inflicted deaths in prison and a further 603 attempted suicides. Many of these were of people on remand. In addition the families of those prisoners who were not given a custodial sentence also suffered the absence of one of their members.
Furthermore, there is the issue of common justice, for justice deferred is justice denied. Paul Cavadino, the principal officer of the National Association for the Care


and Resettlement of Offenders, said, in November 1997, when I first proposed the Bill:
I strongly support this for all the reasons which you clearly set out when you moved the Bill in October 1997, together with one additional reason—that reducing the number of remand prisoners by cutting delays will provide relief for the overcrowded and overstretched prison system.
We are now 18 months down the road, with the number of those on remand awaiting trial in England and Wales having increased substantially. I beg the House to support my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. James Gray, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Keith Simpson and Mr. Robert Walter.

PREVENTION OF DELAY IN TRIALS

Miss Anne McIntosh accordingly presented a Bill to provide that a person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 64].

Orders of the Day — House of Lords Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In my speech on Second Reading, I described the Bill as exquisitely simple, although momentous in its effects—a description which, for some inexplicable reason, seemed to trouble some commentators, as though simplicity were incompatible with significance.
The Bill is a clear fulfilment of our manifesto pledge to remove, by statute, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, as an initial self-contained reform. It deals only with that point and with its essential consequences, most notably conferring on peers who leave the House of Lords the right to vote in elections to the House of Commons, and indeed to stand for election without having to relinquish their title.
After a two-day Second Reading debate, and four full days in Committee, the Bill reaches its Third Reading with its simplicity unimpaired. It has been fully—some might say extensively—debated, and those debates have been, for the most part, good-humoured and constructive.
There were one or two slightly desperate attempts to pretend that the Government were trying in some way to curtail or obstruct debate, but those claims foundered on the clear evidence to the contrary. There were also attempts to take our discussions beyond the Bill itself—to draw in proposals that might be made at a later stage in Parliament's consideration of the Bill, and that, if made, would be the focus of further debate in the House—or to dwell on other issues raised by our White Paper, including those now before the royal commission. I take the opportunity now to assure the House that the Government do, of course, intend to provide time to debate the White Paper later in the Session.
One evident feature of our debates so far has been the difficulty experienced by the official Opposition in knowing how they should attack the Bill. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) managed—as he did in response to my statement on 20 January—in the course of one opening speech to accuse the Government first of undue delay and secondly of undue haste, or perhaps it was the other way round.
The hon. Gentleman complained that the timetable for the royal commission was too short, but he also said
that the Government want to scrap the hereditary peers and then kick the whole process into the long grass"—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 619]
and that the Government have no intention of reform before the next general election.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Lady seems to be maligning my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The delay and the undue haste are perfectly compatible. The delay was in setting up a royal commission, and the undue haste was in proceeding without one.

Mrs. Beckett: That is a helpful re-interpretation of what the hon. Member for Woodspring would argue that he meant, but it is not, I fear, what he said. Far from maligning the hon. Gentleman, I was quoting him.
It was not at all easy to be clear about the nature of the charge that the Opposition were striving to lay against the Government, or of the evidence on which it might be based. Nor was it clear whether the Opposition did or did not support the hereditary principle.
Sterling work was done to help Opposition Members make up their minds by many of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who pursued the issue with a tenacity that all on the Government Benches—and even, in the end, some on the Opposition Benches—admired.
Support for the hereditary principle had, after all, featured in the Conservative party's 1997 campaign guide. Despite attempts by the hon. Member for Woodspring to put a slightly different gloss on it, there is no question but that it appeared there squarely in the context of a discussion about the House of Lords. That is the element of the hereditary principle that all candidates for the Conservative party were sent out to defend in 1997: the right to sit as a Member of Parliament by inheritance and birth. As to whether Conservative Members still support that principle, on that question, too, in our debates, first they did and then they did not—at least, I think so.
It seems that we may have arrived at the position where the Conservatives have, for the most part rather grudgingly, reaffirmed that heredity cannot be the basis for a place in our legislature. I say "reaffirmed" because, in theory, their party came to that view at least 88 years ago. The problem is just that, in all their ensuing decades of power, they never got round to doing anything about it. I think it was the hon. Member for Woodspring who said, with commendable frankness, that it had not been a priority.
Although Conservative Members will, I am sure, affirm yet again that that is the view of the modern Conservative party, it has been noticeable how frequently during the days of debate the amendments that they moved just happened to have the effect of retaining for a few more years or reinstating after a couple of years the existing House of Lords, complete with its in-built Tory majority.
St. Augustine, with his plea to be made holy, but not quite yet, had nothing on the Conservative party. At least he was asking to be made holy within the lifespan of an adult man. The Tories have already strung the matter out for longer than that. As I recall, St Augustine's reported words were
Give me chastity and continency—hut not yet".
If earlier generations of hereditary peers had shared his wish and practised chastity, we would all be spending this evening doing something else.
The nearest the Tories have got to a justification for yet more procrastination is the argument that has sustained debate and delay for all those 88 years—the less-than-perfect nature of every alternative that has ever been proposed. That that argument is disingenuous is demonstrated by more than the decades over which it has been advanced.
In this Parliament, in which the life peers have been appointed by eight Prime Ministers over 40 years; in this Parliament, in which only just over half of the appointments made by the present Prime Minister were of Labour peers, whereas Tory Prime Ministers have usually

taken the opportunity to add still further to their in-built majority among hereditary peers; and in this Parliament, in which, for the first time in our history, a Prime Minister has volunteered to reduce his own powers of patronage, the Conservatives continue to claim that what they fear is a House of Lords made up of what they dub "Tony's cronies". What would they have done for an argument if the Prime Minister had been called David?

Mr. David Davis: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: A David! I am delighted to give way.

Mr. Davis: That is as good a cue as any.
Some Conservative Members have concerns about the lack of independence of a future House of Lords. Three categories of public servant—High Court judges, the ombudsman of this House and the Comptroller and Auditor General of this House—are subject to dismissal only by a vote of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords to protect them from influence by the Executive. What does the right hon. Lady propose to do with a House of "Tony's cronies" to protect them in the future?

Mrs. Beckett: I expect that the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government envisage that the central Cross-Bench group, which is always regarded as independent by all commentators, including Labour Members, and so described, will be appointed by an independent appointments commission. It will comprise a smallish number of people, one nominee from each of the political parties made by those political parties, and others, with an independent chairman, all appointed on Nolan principles. The members of that central Cross-Bench group, as we know them, will continue to be appointed by that appointments commission, not by the Prime Minister. We have also given an undertaking that the individual political parties will be able to make their own nominations without the Prime Minister having, as he has had to up to now, a veto. All those things preserve a proper measure of independence.
It has been rather a feature of our debates here that some Conservative Members, although not, I think the right hon. Gentleman, have argued that independence in the House of Lords can come only from the hereditary peers. We do not accept that argument, and I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. We are determined that the House of Lords shall have a proper measure of independence. What we do not wish is for it to remain, as it has always been, in the control of the Conservative party.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The thrust of the arguments from many Labour Members, including the right hon. Lady, during these debates, has been that the Cross Benchers are not properly independent. I am delighted that she now admits that they are. We now have her affirmation that she regards the Cross Benchers as being truly independent. Is that right?

Mrs. Beckett: I have never ever said that the Cross Benchers were not independent.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I shall deal with this point first, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
I was careful to say that that is how they have always been described. I have sat through most of the debates and I have endeavoured to read each contribution that I have not sat through, but I cannot say, hand on heart, that no hon. Member has ever cast doubt on the independence of any Cross Bencher. It is within recent memory that some have crossed from the Tory Benches to the Cross Benches. I have never impugned the independence of the Cross Benchers and the White Paper specifically describes them as such and says that that independent element, should, in the Government's view, be preserved.

Mr. Tyrie: The right hon. Lady has covered herself a little with those remarks, but in a speech in the House a few weeks ago, the Home Secretary made it clear that he believes that the Cross Benchers are not really independent. I shall gladly provide the right hon. Lady with the reference in due course.

Mrs. Beckett: There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is prone to teasing Conservative Members, usually quite successfully. However, the Government's view of Cross Benchers and the life peers' potential for independence is clear from the White Paper.
On Second Reading, I suggested that proper debate about what a second Chamber should do and, in consequence, be, had always been bedevilled and diverted by the voices and the potential votes of the hereditary peers. In past debates, those who oppose reform have always thrown their weight against any individual reform. They have joined those who wanted an elected House against a mixed House. They have joined those who feared for the effect on the House of Commons of elections to a Second Chamber to defeat an elected House. All the time, their agenda—sometimes their hidden agenda—has simply been to maintain the hereditary peers.
Just as it is true that the debate has always been bedevilled by the issue of the hereditary peerage, and hijacked by opponents of any change, it is equally true that it has always been bedevilled by the interests of the Conservative party, which has, I fear, always seen its interests as being at best identical to, or, if needs be, more important than, the interests of the country.
It may be that, out of the discussions in the House of Lords, out of the work of the Royal Commission and the study of the Joint Committee, will come a broad consensus of view on the best way forward. That would not only be a good thing in itself; it could mean fairly speedy progress towards longer-term reform and a new Second Chamber, even in this Parliament. That may happen. It may be that the Conservative party will see the value of reform. I hope so. We shall see.
However, what I have never doubted, and what the debates have overwhelmingly confirmed, is that even stage 1 of reform will be better than what we have today. We will have the emergence of a House of Lords, all of whose Members have earned their place on the basis of their contribution to our public life. I say that without discredit to those who, whatever the service they have tried to give, owe their place to the contribution of their forebears.
One of the unfortunate features of the debate—I hear mild echoes of it from the Opposition Benches now—was the way in which some Conservative Members slid

towards attacking life peers, making the point that a mere 500 of them were insufficient to carry out the business of a House of Parliament. Most insulting of all, they claimed that only hereditary peers could be truly independent.
When hereditary peers go, distinguished scientists, doctors, business people, retired soldiers, public servants, even some farmers, will still sit in the House of Lords, but all will be sitting there because of their distinction. Many life peers are distinguished former Members of this House, yet some Conservative Members have repeatedly suggested that this eminent group of men and women are quite incapable of managing without the hereditary peers.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Conservative Members have never suggested any such thing. We have said that half those who regularly attend the other place are hereditary peers. The figures have been produced time and again, and to that particular charge there has been no effective answer.

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it has repeatedly been said—as I say, not only have I sat through the debates, but I have read them—particularly by Conservative Back Benchers, that, in some way, the life peers will be insufficient to cope in the House of Lords without the hereditary peers. It is, of course, true that many of those who attend today are hereditary peers; it is equally true that large numbers of life peers attend. As has been pointed out by hon. Members, including Conservative Members, there are quite enough among the life peers to sustain the work of a Second Chamber.
In these days of debate, we have seen a range of contradictions, but as I looked back over them, I was suddenly struck by one curious, perhaps significant, omission. It has been a constant feature of detective fiction, from Conan Doyle onwards, that so often what is not said is as significant or more significant than what is—the dog that does not bark. The Conservative party has aired its purported fears about what the Government intend and their real attitude, but what about their own attitude to the transitional House? That is the dog that has not barked in this debate.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: No, not for a moment.
All the attention has been given to whether, or how fast, the Government might move on to stage 2. Where do the Opposition stand? Much of the thrust of their amendments and their speeches in support of them have been to protest that nothing should be done to the existing House of Lords without a wide-ranging and fundamental overall review of our constitution.
The hon. Member for Woodspring, in his opening speech on Second Reading, said:
we shall have to decide not only what we want Parliament to do, but Parliament's relation to the Executive, to the judiciary and to Europe. Only after we have decided what we want Parliament to do should we divide the powers between the two Houses—assuming we believe in a bicameral system. Only then can we decide the membership and size of the two Chambers."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 622.]


A moment's thought serves to suggest that that undertaking would take not months, but probably a considerable number of years.

Dr. Liam Fox: Can the right hon. Lady tell me which of my remarks she disagrees with?

Mrs. Beckett: I disagree with the fact that it is impossible to contemplate removing the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords without contemplating all those major constitutional questions. That clearly was the hon. Gentleman's contention at that point.
I should like the hon. Member for Woodspring, who leads for the Opposition on these matters, to address two questions on behalf of his party. First, although I recognise that only a couple of his hon. Friends have touched on this issue in passing, will he say whether the Conservative party would recreate today's House of Lords if it won the next election? If not even the Conservative party would recreate a House of Lords with 750 people entitled to a place in it by virtue of their birth, what are its intentions towards the transitional House?
Secondly, when I introduced the Bill on Second Reading, I quoted from our manifesto, making it crystal clear that we do not intend to
seek more than parity in numbers with the Conservative party in the transitional House, and that we do not believe that any party should seek a majority in the House of Lords."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 615.]
I then challenged the Opposition to say the same. In all the six days of debate that have ensued, as far as I can see only one Opposition Member—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who does not always speak for his Front Bench—has said that it is not good for the Conservatives to have a permanent in-built majority, but no Conservative Front Bencher has felt able to give the assurance that I sought on the first day of our debates.

Mr. Mike Hancock: The right hon. Lady is asking the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to deal with certain issues in his speech. Before she reaches the end of her speech, I should be grateful if she answered a question in respect of the timing and the length of stage 1, which has preoccupied so many of our colleagues on the Tory Benches during the six days of debate. Is she now able to give the House and the country a better steer on what the Government anticipate will be the length of stage 1? She asks Conservative Front Benchers to come clean, and I support her in that, but the nation would like some steer from the Government about how long they expect the transitional period to take, even if they do not receive support from the official Opposition on that.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question—I do not think that anyone can, at the moment—because we are at too early a stage. I shall give him two reasons why. First, the royal commission has begun its work. When it gets into that work, and when we see the reaction to the consultation that it is undertaking, we may have a clearer idea of whether consensus is possible or whether views are so divided that it will be difficult to come to common ground.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may been, as I have—or may not have been—reading the most recent debates in the House of Lords on the White Paper. This is the third occasion since the autumn on which the House of Lords has debated those matters, perfectly legitimately—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt proceedings, but we are debating Third Reading and such debates tend to be narrow. The Bill, too, is narrow; it deals with the abolition of the hereditary peerage. I can understand the difficulties that the House has, but we must try to keep within the constraints of the debate on the Bill.

Mrs Beckett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will say no more, except to recommend that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) read the White Paper debates. He will see that the atmosphere of those debates is one of growing anxiety, which leads me to question the issue of time.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady has lost most of her speech on the basis that we are debating Third Reading. She sought a steer. Two former Conservative Prime Ministers, a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer and, looking around the Chamber, a number of Conservative Members have argued for an elected House. That is the steer to which we are trying to lead her.

Mrs. Beckett: I accept that completely. I do not want to stray for too long, but the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that he is talking about stage 2; I am talking about the transitional House, which will arise on the passage of the Bill. We will no doubt debate stage 2 at length on some happy occasion in the future.
One reason why I am asking about the attitude of the Opposition towards the transitional House is that, when he spoke of the in-built party advantage—the control, indeed—that the Conservative party permanently enjoys in the present House of Lords, the hon. Member for Woodspring said:
there must be better reasons for reforming part of our Parliament than that".—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 618.]
"That" is permanent Conservative control, which leads me to ask him to say at least a little about what are the real policies and plans of the official Opposition. I will not disguise from him or from the House the fact that we have suspected throughout that the Opposition's plan was to maintain, by hook or by crook, the hold that they have always had on the second Chamber of our Parliament.

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify for me your ruling on the breadth of the debate? Are we allowed on Third Reading to debate the question of the transitional House, to which the abolition of hereditary peers will inevitably lead, or is that banned from our debate as well?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously some elbow room has to be given; that is the best way that I can put it. Hon. Members can debate what is in the Bill, and perhaps related matters, but if they go into related matters to the exclusion of the Bill, the Chair will bring them to order. I hope that that is helpful.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that your remarks have been of great assistance to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy


Speaker. Let me hasten to assure him that I am not inviting the hon. Member for Woodspring to enter into lengthy debate. I am simply asking him to clarify whether the Conservative party accepts that no party should seek a majority in the transitional House. If that is accepted, it would be helpful to us all to have it made plain. Otherwise, the suspicion will remain that the Conservative party is ending this century in the way that it began it: speaking of change, but hanging on to power at any cost; pursuing its own interests, irrespective of the interests of the country; still standing for the past rather than for the future; and still standing for the few rather than the many. If Conservative Members vote against Third Reading, we shall certainly be entitled to assume that what they find unacceptable is not the specific proposals that the Bill enshrines, but anything that challenges their long hegemony.
The Government believe that the removal of the hereditary peerage from Parliament is a prize worth securing in its own right. The Bill addresses the key deficiency in the composition of the present House of Lords: it forces everyone to address the question of the role of the hereditary peers on its own terms.
The hereditary peerage has had an honourable history of service. Lord Cranborne said some months ago—in the House of Lords I think—that he was sad that his family's centuries of public service would now be brought to an end. That is neither the purpose nor the effect of this Bill, which are simply that neither he nor any other will have a reserved place in our public service, irrespective of interest or capacity. They will be free to serve in the same way and on the same terms as all their fellow citizens, and I am sure that some of them will seek to do so. That is the effect of this Bill. I commend it to the House.

Dr. Liam Fox: Never can the official Opposition's response to a Third Reading debate have been so widely trailed by the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is rather flattering that the Government should seek our ideas where they have none of their own. I hope that I can give the right hon. Lady some help as she stumbles on the Government's way towards stage 2.
There are four ways in which we need to consider the Bill: as an end in itself; as part of the Government's intended eventual policy for this stage of reform; as part of the wider reform of the House of Lords; and as part of the wider constitutional architecture that the Government seem to be constructing, albeit incoherently.
On Second Reading, the Leader of the House said that the Bill would achieve three things: it would remove the ability to sit in the House of Lords by birthright, it would modernise our handling of legislation, and it would improve our Parliament. It is worth weighing up what our debates have shown about those three aims.
Let me give the Leader of the House her due. I welcome the news that we shall be able to engage in further debate on the White Paper. I think it worried all hon. Members that the rules of the House restricted debate on the wider issues. I leave others to judge whether that was the intention of those who drafted the Bill; but the Bill was tightly drafted, and hon. Members on both sides of the House were not sure what they could and could not debate. Given that we are debating a major constitutional issue in a major constitutional arena, I welcome the chance to debate that issue in a wider context as, I think, will Members of all parties.
One of our difficulties was that we had no concept of whether or not the Bill was an interim measure, because no time scale was specified at any stage. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who is no longer present, asked the Leader of the House for a "steer". We have had no such steer. It is difficult for us to interpret the Government's proposals, because we have no time scale in which to place them.
Originally, we were not to be allowed a royal commission, but the Government discovered—doubtless from the focus groups that are the real powers behind the way in which we are governed nowadays—that that was not popular. We are, therefore, to have a royal commission, until December 1999.
Rather mischievously—not that that is the way in which she normally does business—the Leader of the House tried to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt again, but the hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject of the Bill.

Dr. Fox: I am responding to what the Leader of the House said at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker. She said that the Opposition were complaining both that the Government were too fast, and that they were too slow. The Government were too slow in not providing for a royal commission in the first place, and they are now asking the commission to consider the proposals with undue haste. That makes it difficult for us to consider the Bill in the context of time.
The Leader of the House set out a number of principles on Second Reading. First, she dealt with the ability to sit in the House of Lords by birthright. Interestingly, some of her hon. Friends failed to distinguish between belief in the hereditary principle—in any hereditary principle—and belief in the principle of heredity in the House of Lords. Conservative Members made it clear that our party was perfectly happy with the hereditary principle. As it is the basis on which the monarchy operates, we have no constitutional problem with it. Many Labour Members took the same view, although—interestingly again—a number of them did not accept the hereditary principle governing the monarchy either. That may cause the Leader of the House some trouble when we actually embark on reform.

Mr. Bill Rammell: We have heard these spurious points about the monarchy from Conservative Members before. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is all the difference in the world between a constitutional monarchy acting on the basis of advice, and Members in the second Chamber who are part of our system of government deciding on legislation that will affect the lives of millions of people, on the basis of the hereditary principle?

Dr. Fox: That is exactly the point that I was making. My point is that, while many hon. Members were able to make the distinction to which the hon. Gentleman refers, a number of Labour Members failed to do so, expressing the view that the hereditary principle was wrong in itself. We make the distinction made by the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, by the Leader of the House.
Our difficulty on Second Reading was this. The Leader of the House said then that it was unacceptable for Members to sit in the House of Lords because of who


their parents had been—or their grandparents, or other predecessors. However, when it was suggested to the right hon. Lady that the so-called Weatherill amendments might be tabled, she said that she would be minded to persuade her colleagues to accept them if they were tabled in the other House—thus negating her first aim, which was to prevent hereditary peers from sitting in the House of Lords. I shall say more about that shortly.
The right hon. Lady's second aim was to modernise our handling of legislation. That, I think, raised expectations on both sides of the House. Certainly, we could all make improvements in the way in which we handle legislation—but how were we to secure greater scrutiny and new methods of ensuring accountability? We waited and waited to see whether the Government would present any new proposals; now we are on Third Reading, and what has been modernised?
Part of the problem is the Government's continuing failure to grasp the essence of the debate. It is parliamentary functions that we need to discuss. For instance—I thought that the Government might address themselves to this—most legislation dealt with in the House of Commons nowadays is secondary legislation. How could we use even an interim Chamber to improve the way in which we scrutinise such legislation? Notwithstanding the stated aims of the Leader of the House, none of the Government amendments dealt with that.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the apparent inconsistency in Labour's attitude to the hereditary principle in the legislature. Does he not accept that our eventual aim is to abolish the hereditary principle in the second Chamber, and that the transitional Chamber is a means to that end? We would prefer the transitional Chamber to contain no hereditary peers, but if the only way to achieve our aim is to compromise, we are willing to compromise in order to move more quickly to our ultimate goal: a completely reformed House of Lords, or rather second Chamber, containing no Members who are there by right of heredity.

Dr. Fox: That leaves me more confused than ever. It is utterly unclear what the time scale is, and on what principles the Government are now working. It seems that expediency is to take precedence over everything else. The last interim Chamber to be established has existed since 1911—

Mrs. Beckett: Whose fault is that?

Dr. Fox: It is the fault of the House of Commons, which blocked reform in 1968 because it did not want a challenge to its power and authority. The Government will have to consider that, because they have now unleashed a process of reform that will accelerate.
The right hon. Lady's remark shows just how confused the Government now are. The House cannot possibly know what it is to get from the Government, because the Government seem not to know what they want or what they intend to do when the Bill goes to the other place.
The third aim that the Government specified on Second Reading was the improvement of our Parliament. I feel rather sad about the Government's failure throughout our

debates to acknowledge the work done by hereditary peers. It would have cost them nothing to be a little more open and welcoming. It seems—the Leader of the House made this point today—that the value of those in the upper House is determined by where they come from, not by their contribution. The right hon. Lady, in fact, referred to "whatever contribution they try to make".
Many hereditary peers have contributed a great deal, and work extremely hard. Their experience and expertise will be difficult to replace. I do not pretend that it will be impossible, but this will be a loss, and it would have been better for all concerned if the Government had accepted the fact with a little more grace.

Angela Smith: Again, the hon. Gentleman shows how fundamentally he misunderstands the Bill. Labour Members have never criticised individual hereditary peers; our argument concerns the legitimacy with which they hold their position.

Dr. Fox: That, as the Prime Minister would say, is completely untrue. Labour Members have made considerable criticisms of individual Members of the House of Lords, simply on the basis that they are hereditary peers. My point is that they have made tremendous contributions, and that it would have been nice if the Government had accepted that rather more graciously. One or two junior Ministers have accepted it, but have done so very reluctantly.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. There has not been any criticism of individual hereditary peers from Labour Members. One or two have poked a certain amount of fun at their heritage, but that is not the same as being rude about individuals, or their service in the upper House. There has been considerable criticism from Conservative Members—not, I accept from those on the Front Bench—of life peers, suggesting that they are unworthy to be Members of the Parliament. That is unfitting.

Dr. Fox: By straying so widely, we are pushing your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is true that individuals were singled out. For some reason, Labour Members do not regard it as insulting to poke fun at people's backgrounds or their families. That says much about where the Government are coming from politically and psychologically.
The Leader of the House did not answer the point that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who said that some officers needed protection from the Executive and asked how they would be protected. How will the independence of those individuals, who are there to scrutinise the Executive, be preserved if the Executive have the ability to produce a majority in the upper House, all the Members of which will be appointed? It is a reasonable question. Perhaps the Minister will answer that when he sums up.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Perhaps the moment has passed, but I was intrigued by the notion that the hon. Gentleman regretted the loss of Members of the other place on account of their experience. Does he have the same regret over the loss of Members of the House of Commons who, despite their large experience, are no


longer with us? Is he attracted by the notion that, if they were still here, he could retain power in the House of Commons as well as in the other place?

Dr. Fox: If the hon. Gentleman had attended some of the debates, he might have been better informed about the discussions that we have had.

Mr. Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have attended many debates during the passage of the Bill, unlike, I understand, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who preferred to be at the Brit awards when he should have been leading his party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Dr. Fox: It is not a point of anything. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) asked a specific question. I cannot tell him how much I regret the loss of experience from the House of Commons after the general election. The quality of government has suffered greatly as a result.
As I have said, we need to look at the Bill as part of the Government's intended policy for the whole stage of reform. We have had to debate the Bill in an Alice in Wonderland way because of the Government's ambivalence about the so-called Weatherill amendments. That has had a distinct bearing on how we have thought about the Bill.
Everything boils down to the following fact. The Government intend to accept a major change to the Bill in the Chamber that they say has no democratic legitimacy, but have refused amendments to do the same thing that were introduced in the House of Commons, which they claim does have democratic legitimacy. They have already voted against those proposals, which they say they will welcome if they are brought back.
If the Government follow their intended course, we shall be left in the ridiculous position of having a completely different Bill coming back from the other place. That will also go against the principles that the Government have set out in introducing the Bill, so it has been a difficult section of the debate. It is difficult to know exactly what the Government want.
The Government intend to allow some hereditary peers to remain; they will be elected by an internal caucus. I shall look forward to some of the speeches from Labour Back Benchers if the Bill comes back in that form. There will be quite a feast of words and humble pie to be eaten when it comes back, given the speeches that some have made. The Leader of the House mentioned the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who has put difficult questions to Conservative Members. We look forward to the rematch on that issue when the Bill comes back from the other place.
Where does the Bill lead us? What effect does it have on wider reform? What does it say, not about the contents of stage 2, but about how we are to proceed to whatever the next part of the process is? I wonder whether the Government understand the full consequences of the Bill. In removing the hereditary peers, they will change entirely the ethos of the upper House. That will have two effects. It will increase the appetite of reformers for reform and it will make it easier for those who were reluctant to have

reform to accept any reforms that are proposed. It will perhaps increase the appetite for radical reform of the other place.
Our position is clear. We set up the Mackay commission under the former Lord Chancellor, who will report in a short time. We were well ahead of the Government. The royal commission should have been set up when we set up the Mackay commission to examine the wider implications of the proposals. Therefore, we shall have our position ready long before the Government. We will give party evidence to the royal commission and have a definitive position.
The Leader of the House asks reasonably two direct questions—first, if we win the next election, will we return to the hereditary element? No, we will not. Secondly, would we seek in a fully appointed House—which is what the Government seek at present—to appoint a majority of Conservatives? Clearly, we would not.
We have made the point that the aim in the upper House is to bring the Executive to account. We want an increase in the power of the upper Chamber, not a reduction. That is one of the differences that is emerging during the passage of the Bill.
We will make specific proposals; I am sure that the Minister would not expect me to detail them now. As the Opposition, we will do so in our own good time, when it suits us and when it causes the Government the most discomfort, but we will make our proposals clear well ahead, it appears, of the Government, who have introduced the legislation without knowing where it is going.

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): If the hon. Gentleman accepts the end of the hereditary peerage, why is he opposing the Bill?

Dr. Fox: Because it is a bad Bill. It is incoherent, piecemeal and does not take us clearly from one stage to another. It is fair to say that, in every part of the debates on the Bill, we have never questioned the legitimacy of the Government in carrying out what was clearly in their manifesto, but we have always said that we needed to know what the whole process was going to be.
The Government ask us to accept a fundamental change to the way in which we are governed without telling us what the change will mean. That is unacceptable. We do not know what the end point of the process will be. As with many other things, the Government are starting a process without thinking through how it will finish.
The Government do not seem to know what they want. They do not know when they want it. They do not seem to know where the process will lead and, frankly, they do not seem to care what they get. The Leader of the House has said that anything is better than what we have at present, without us knowing how the new system will work, whether it will be stable or whether it will be effective. That seems utterly ridiculous.
If they want to be credible, the Government will have to come up very soon—they should have done so already—with concrete ideas about how they want to take the process further. Simply to set up commissions and to talk about Joint Committees with no clear steer about what they actually want for the government of the country


is unacceptable. It shows their lack of courage. Perhaps I am being unfair; perhaps it just shows the lack of thought that has gone into the process.
The Leader of the House mocked what I said on Second Reading about requiring the Bill to fit into wider constitutional reform. I said at the outset of my speech that we had to consider the Bill as it fitted into the wider constitutional architecture. I stick by what I said on Second Reading.
Properly thought out reform would decide what Parliament would do. There is a strong case for reforming Parliament. The most important part of that is increasing the powers of Members of the House of Commons against the Executive, but we have to consider—I repeat what the Leader of the House quoted—what we want Parliament to do, and the relationship of a bicameral Parliament as a whole with the Executive. What will the relationship with an ever more politically active judiciary be?
What is to be our relationship with Europe? Given the events of the past 24 hours, it might have been better if the Government had been expending their energies in reforming parts of the European constitutional architecture, rather than trying to tackle the operation of the other place.

Dr. George Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a matter not of whether, but of when we should consider those issues? If the Government had presented in the Bill a full blueprint for reform, might we not be accused of having misled the electorate in our manifesto, and of trying to make major constitutional changes that we had not presented in our manifesto to the electorate? Moreover, will we not require an election if we cannot reach a consensus on the second Chamber?

Dr. Fox: I am rather confused by that intervention. However, I do not think that the electorate would have minded being misled on yet one more promise in the Government's manifesto.
A proper debate on the issues would have been welcome. During the Bill's passage, especially in Committee, a cross-party consensus began to emerge, that the House could very usefully concern itself in overall reform of Parliament and its operation. One of our final debates in Committee, on an Opposition amendment, was the most interesting one, in which a genuine cross-party consensus seemed to be developing that the House of Commons was not holding the Executive sufficiently to account. In that debate, we gave the example of Ministers' ability to go to a European Council of Ministers and agree a measure that would become a directive that would, by law, apply to the House of Commons. That is undemocratic.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat what was said earlier: the Bill has been quite tightly drafted, and the House must discuss only its contents. References to what may or may not happen in other places and other times are permissible, but are not to be dwelt on in any detail.

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling, and for allowing me to finish the paragraph before stopping me.
One of our suspicions about the Bill is that we may never reach a subsequent stage, and that we shall end up, perhaps for a considerable time, with what is called the interim House. In her failure today to give us any clear steer on a time scale, the Leader of the House has merely reconfirmed those specific fears.
The Government have given us no idea of what they want in subsequent stages. Therefore, we have to suspect that they have no plan to reach subsequent stages. That would be a great pity, as hon. Members on both sides of the House think that the imminent interim Chamber will be an unsatisfactory part of Parliament's operation.
What role do Ministers envisage for the second Chamber? What powers do they want it to have? The suspicion must remain that the Government are creating in the Bill a compliant halfway House of yes men who will do the Executive's bidding and fail to bring the Government to account.
Our basic criticisms of the Bill remain. Its proposals are piecemeal and incoherent, and, ultimately, will create instability. For those reasons, we oppose the Bill.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: When the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was challenged to say what the Conservative party's own views were on reform of the House of Lords, he summed up very eloquently that party's attitude to the Bill and the subject. What did he say? He seemed to say, "We will bring forward our own proposals when we like, when it suits us, and when it can cause the maximum discomfort and damage to the Government." He said nothing about the wider implications for government in the United Kingdom or the modernisation of Parliament, and expressed no thought on wider United Kingdom constitutional reform. There was not one bit of it.
Conservative Members' whole attitude might be summed up by the single phrase, "What we have, we will hold; thank you very much. Everyone else, and everything else, can go hang." Their protestations about the United Kingdom constitution are completely bogus. We have heard nothing from them but endless pretence about their concern for the democratic operation and underpinning of Parliament.
Three features have characterised our debates on the Bill, through which many of us have sat very enjoyably and constructively. The first feature has been the Government's complete dominance in their arguments for making the changes; there has been a complete lack of any coherent, sustained or well-argued position to the contrary. No well-argued position against the Government's proposals has been articulated by the Opposition, or by anyone else who opposes the proposals—and I know why. Not only do the Government's proposals make eminent sense, but the Government's proposals chime with what the public want us to do.
It is perfectly clear to the public that hereditary peers sitting as of right in the House of Lords have no place in a democratic and modern legislature. It is very clear also that the public should like there to be some erosion of the powers of patronage exercised by the Prime Minister.


I think that the public have it right. The public are not revolutionaries, or at least they were not when I most recently consulted them, either directly or—

Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: They were not revolutionaries when I consulted them, either directly or using one of those spurious focus groups that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) continually refers to, right on cue.

Mr. Shepherd: I am, as always, bemused by the prince of spin. However, his characterisation of one side of the House did not dwell upon some of his own colleagues, who—in our consideration of some of the Bill's clauses—fought and argued coherently against the Bill. I simply refer him to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). One should not think that the House is not trying to wrestle with a great principle of the United Kingdom legislative process, which is important. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman spinning away like that. He should start telling the truth about why it is a worthwhile Bill.

Mr. Mandelson: Certain individual hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman included, have very directly addressed some of the substantive issues. I was describing the official position of the Conservative party, and what we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers, whom I clearly distinguish. Nevertheless, if he does not mind, at the end of my speech, I shall return to the subject matter that he sought to introduce.
The Government's arguments have dominated in our proceedings on the Bill because of the very clear, precise and well thought through manner in which the then Opposition Labour party constructed the section of its manifesto on reform of the House of Lords. That section in the manifesto was not casually penned by some toiler down at Millbank, but flowed from the rather expensive fountain pen of a very eminent lawyer, who now occupies a very senior and prominent place in the House of Lords.
What was carefully considered and constructed was a two-stage process—a two-stage journey—in which the clear principles of initial reform were stated. It was a process that would enable us to proceed with important albeit limited reform, and without getting bogged down in such procedure and debate in this place that any reform, at any stage, would be prevented—which is exactly what happened when previous Governments and Parliaments embarked on the journey of reform of the other place.
Another very important feature of the Government's manifesto was our desire to take into account other people's views—to listen to other people, and to hear what other people, parties, hon. Members and interested bodies had to say—on the future of the House of Lords. The two-stage process that the Government have set out allows us to get under our belt a limited but important reform that fulfils the principle set out in the Bill, while proceeding concurrently with our desire to take the views of others into consideration when formulating a longer-term approach.

Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand our criticism. It is not that there is a two-stage reform,

but that we have one stage without knowing what the second stage will be. We are on a mystery tour of constitutional change. Either the Government do not know what they want and what their guiding principles are for the second stage or they are not telling us. Which is it?

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of what I am saying. We do not have to agree on our eventual plans for reform of the House of Lords to fulfil the principle set out in our manifesto and enshrined in the Bill that hereditary peers should not sit as of right in the House of Lords. That is a simple, elementary principle that is unaffected by any other consideration or wider reform of the House of Lords. Surely even the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government would be open to immense and justified criticism if they tore in to the House with a ready-made, ready-baked, pre-cooked set of reforms that had been the subject of plentiful discussion and debate behind closed doors in various Cabinet committees, but which had not attracted the views of anyone outside the Government and on which no one had had an opportunity to express their opinions.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's wonderful, flowing, honeyed words of soothing reassurance to the British people about consultation and measures that are eminently reasonable. If he is concerned about what other people think, will he reflect on the fact that an ICM poll conducted last November found that 68 per cent. of those consulted thought that the Government should not proceed with the first stage until they were prepared to put an alternative before the British people? The Government have failed to do that.

Mr. Mandelson: The people sampled in the ICM opinion poll are probably the same people who, by supporting the Labour manifesto, voted for the two-stage process that the Government are implementing. Having set out in their manifesto a clear two-stage process, it would be outrageous for the Government to abandon that the moment that they were elected to office. I do not know what democratic principles the hon. Gentleman is trying to espouse by suggesting that we should jettison the manifesto pledge on which we were elected and proceed in a different way six months later.

Mr. Wells: If the Government intended to implement the two-stage process that the right hon. Gentleman describes, why did they not appoint a consultative body—a Speaker's Conference or a royal commission—as soon as they came to office? That would have given opportunities for proper discussion, bringing in those on all sides of the argument, including the Official Opposition. I am not aware of any consultation having taken place with the Conservative party on the issue before the Bill was introduced. Does that not give the lie to the right hon. Gentleman's honeyed arguments about a two-stage process?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying further and further from the contents of the Bill. I should be grateful if we could return.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to you for saving me from this torture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regard it as a


torture to be led astray in that way. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) would have achieved the same end that has befallen other Governments that have embarked on a process of reform—endless, continuous and constant wrangling and debate between parties, without anyone being able to move a step further on reform of the House of Lords.
I am not surprised that the Conservatives find the process so worrying and fear that the approach set out in our manifesto will undermine them. Throughout their contributions during the debates on the Bill, the Conservatives have been on the horns of a democratic dilemma. On the one hand they desperately desire to oppose and upset the Government's plans, because that is what they think that they are there for.
In the process, they want to keep their inbuilt majority in the other place, which is the ulterior and not very well hidden motive of most of their contributions on the Bill. On the other hand, they know that championing unelected legislators as they have done and defending, extending and prolonging the life of hereditary peers does not play very well in the pantry—or is it in the kitchen, or on the kitchen table, or under the kitchen table; wherever the discussion is taking place between the Conservative party and the handful of members of the public who are interested in what they have to say on this or any other subject. They find it very difficult to make an argument against the Bill that does not sound like what it is—a defence, using one permutation of argument or another, of the hereditary peers.
The effect of that is that the Conservatives have taken a long time to fail to lay a glove on the Government's position, adding not a scintilla of sense or improvement to the Bill. They have succeeded only in embarrassing themselves by their rhetorical contortions and linguistic gymnastics, as they have wriggled and squirmed on the horns of the dilemma that I have described.
I do not want to dwell on the third feature of the House's consideration, but the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked me to comment on the genuinely felt and interesting debate on the further changes to the Lords that the Bill will make possible. The hon. Member for Woodspring rightly said that the Bill will create a new ethos in the House of Lords. It will whet the appetite for further reform. I have two points on that in conclusion. There is clearly a strong and widely held surface desire in the House for an elected second Chamber to give a thorough, democratic underpinning to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who has spoken before and may speak again if he is lucky enough to be called, will no doubt repeat that argument. It is a matter that I understand, but on which I feel agnostic.
I suggest that as the debate grows, however, other factors will find greater weight in people's consideration. One is the rather unattractive prospect of confrontation and gridlock between the two Houses of Parliament. Many have spoken of the immense contribution that the House of Lords has made to the legislative procedures of Parliament through its ability to review, to revise and to improve legislation without the tendentious grandstanding that more adversarial politics brings to debates in this place.
As the debate about further reforms goes on, people will find it increasingly possible to resist the attraction of the second Chamber being taken over and dominated by party politics to an even greater extent than it is at the moment, which would be the inevitable result of the second Chamber being elected, with all of the selections, re-selections and elections and with the party machines rolling into place to dominate the composition, powers and procedures of the House of Lords—something which I, for one, do not find attractive.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I would not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) into a discussion on the nature of an elected second Chamber, and how it might operate—simply beyond entering a slight note of dissent with what he said, for I see no reason why gridlock should be the necessary consequence of election, if the powers of the two Houses are distinct and clearly defined and the possibility of second-guessing is not written into the constitution. However, as the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, that debate is for a later date.
What is remarkable about the debate and the Bill is that a major step is being taken to reform the House of Lords as we know it—a step that has eluded the grasp of Governments over the past 50 years. The grandfather of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I did say that I was not proposing to follow the right hon. Gentleman's speech closely. That could be taken as an indication that he was free to go.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: It is a discourtesy.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not take it is as a discourtesy.

Mr. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not appropriate to respect the traditions of this House by listening to the debate after one's contribution? Is not the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) abusing the House by leaving the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a strong convention of this House that hon. Members should stay to hear at least the speech following their own. Leaving the Chamber without doing so is to be strongly deprecated.

Mr. Maclennan: I regret that I have triggered this exchange.
When the post-war Labour Government were elected—with a substantial majority, and an upper House in which there were no appointed peers—the proposed abolition of the hereditary peers would not have been regarded either as a high priority or as a practical proposition. How our constitutional affairs have rolled on since then is a matter for comment and note. Even the later attempt, in the 1960s, to bring about a change comparable to this one defeated a Labour Government with a substantial majority.
To some extent, what has been different on this occasion is that the Labour party has not only recognised the importance of making the reform, but was prepared to think it through in advance before it came to office. It was recognised that removing the hereditary peers from the


upper House was not a matter that would command enormously high priority in the minds of the British public, but none the less it was an important step towards modernising our legislature—and one for which we should be prepared.
Therefore, it was right for the Labour party to enter into discussions with the Liberal Democrats before the election as to how to bring the change about. Those were constructive discussions, and the two parties reached agreement on how to proceed. The Government have proceeded with all due diligence and speed to give effect to that pre-election agreement, which was reflected in the Labour party's manifesto—as it was in ours. There is reason for a little satisfaction, in that something that was clearly thought through in advance is proceeding according to plan.
The passing of the hereditary peers is a moment in which one can look back and consider with gratitude the work that has been done by many of the noble families who have served the public interest of our nation down the centuries—the Cavendishes, the Cecils, the Russells and so forth. I agree with the Leader of the House that the prospects of those families serving the public again are not in any way diminished by the enactment of the Bill.
My noble Friend Earl Russell speaks with eloquence, incisiveness and knowledge on matters concerning the students whom he teaches and the social security system, which he has studied. Those activities can be continued, and I hope that people such as my noble Friend will find a place in the interim house—.

Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I will when I finish my sentence. I know that I speak in rather long sentences, but I will be happy to give way then.
Those people have a part to play—a part which I hope they will find—but I also do not doubt that their offspring will contemplate a career in the public service and that, like other citizens of this country, they will think it appropriate to stand for election.

Dr. Starkey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the advantages of the electoral, as opposed to the hereditary, route is that rather more members of those important families—the women, as well as the men—will be encouraged to put themselves forward to carry on the traditions of public service?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady has a good point. The tradition of public service will be sustained, and the Bill will do nothing to stop that.
The Leader of the House was right to emphasise that although the Bill will not give us an ideal upper House, it will give us a better and more effective House than the present one. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I will explain how. Viscount Thurso is a hereditary peer who comes from the part of the country that I have the honour to represent. His grandfather was the Member of Parliament for that constituency. He has said, in contemplation of his job in the House of Lords, that he puts a great deal of time and effort into it and into the policies that he wants to see promoted there. He finds it frustrating that, because the upper House lacks legitimacy, its most careful and deliberate views are inevitably given second rank to the views of this House if there is a conflict.
It is baffling to those who sit in the House of Lords and try to make the views of that House carry that, ultimately, they can be told on a matter of great controversy, such as the Scottish student fees, which divided the two Houses, because they are not elected and are merely hereditary, their views will have to be overturned. If one seeks genuinely to create a strong second Chamber to hold the Executive to account, one must take account of that criticism and recognise that the principle of election will be essential if that Chamber's power is to be strengthened.
Among the most vocal and persuasive of those arguing that case in the upper House are hereditary peers who recognise, as have some distinguished Members of Parliament of all parties, that the time has come for the electoral principle to be enshrined at the centre of our constitution. Having taken the step that we have, we have advanced the process in deliberate fashion to the point where we will certainly get there. A dynamic force has been released that will result in the second phase being much more in accord with the experience of second Chambers in other countries.

Mr. Grieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if hereditary peers believe that further reform is needed, it would have been appropriate for the Bill to come into operation at the conclusion of this Parliament? That would have sealed the fate of the hereditary peers but deferred it, enabling them to participate in the process of formulating an elected second Chamber.

Mr. Maclennan: No, I do not agree, because there are many ways in which the second Chamber could be constructed to meet the democratic principle. Many arguments can and will be advanced about the shape of the second Chamber, the nature of its constituencies, its precise powers, and whether it can second-guess the House of Commons. All those matters do not directly follow from the Bill, but the dominant presence of the hereditary peers in the upper House greatly complicates the deliberations on them. Undue weight is given to a section of the public that owes its presence in our legislature to an accident of birth. That does not make sense. Debates about reform have in the past fallen at that hurdle.
We may feel a certain nostalgia for such distinguished public servants as those members of the Cecil family and other families to whom I alluded, when their automatic occupation of the red Benches comes to an end, but we will also rejoice at the prospect of an upper House that will be a more effective and efficient participant in the democratic process, capable of performing roles that could never have been contemplated for a House dominated by hereditary peers.
The upper House will, for example, be able to scrutinise the prerogative powers of the Crown exercised in treaty making. As of right, I believe, the legislature ought to be able to do that, but it has not been done and could not have been done by an upper House as currently structured.
It would not be possible to give to a House dominated by hereditary peers powers over subordinate legislation, but it would be reasonable for those in a reformed upper House to enjoy those powers if we are to extend the effectiveness of our democratic scrutiny of legislation.
I congratulate the Government on taking this important step, and taking it early in this Parliament. It is perfectly timely. It has gone ahead with an eye to making it possible


to proceed to the next stage of reform even within the lifetime of this Parliament if, as may be thought desirable, there is a consensus about the second phase; but if there is no consensus to enable the enactment of the second phase to take place by agreement—there should be agreement, if at all possible—at least proposals can be made that can be ratified either in a referendum or in a general election following the proposals' publication.
This is a typically British, incremental approach to reform, but at least it is a deliberate approach, one that has been thought out and one that, unlike previous attempts, can and will work.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am delighted to be here on a day that I regard as historic, to fulfil the pledge that I gave my constituents at the general election by implementing the Government's manifesto commitment, on which all Labour Members fought.
The manifesto stated:
The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will end by statute. This will be the first step in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered.
The system of appointment of life peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed. Our objective will be to ensure that over time, party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. We are committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords.
A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform.
That is what we promised and that is what has been delivered.
The Third Reading of the Bill moves us a giant step towards fulfilling the objectives and keeping the manifesto commitment. It is the first step in the essential modernisation process.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: I have only just started, but I will.

Mr. Tyrie: If we have a vote on the Weatherill amendment, will the hon. Gentleman vote against it, on the grounds that it diverges from the manifesto pledge to which he is clearly so deeply attached?

Mr. Steinberg: If that occurs, I will decide at the time. I will probably follow the party Whip.
The reform, which is on the point of enactment, is long overdue. It will ensure that Parliament is ready for the 21st century. We are not abolishing hereditary peers, as some have tried to imply, but simply their automatic right to vote in Parliament—a right derived only from the accident of birth. It is indefensible that people whose only claim is of birth should be able to legislate in a democracy. I am completely amazed that anyone can defend that.
On reflection, perhaps it only almost amazes me. It is no wonder that the Conservatives want to keep the status quo. That historic process has given the Conservative party a built-in majority. In the House of Lords, the Conservatives outnumber Labour by nearly 3:1. As we have seen over the years, they do not hesitate to use their majority to try to pervert the course of democracy. Recent examples include the banning of handguns following the Dunblane tragedy. The whole country wanted to get rid of handguns, but not that lot sitting at the opposite side of this building.
More recently, the minimum wage—a manifesto commitment for which millions of people voted at the general election—passed through this House, but was not supported by the House of Lords.
The most recent challenge—on the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999—demonstrated that the House of Lords had deliberately set out to undermine the authority of a Government elected with a huge popular mandate. That action led to the use of the Parliament Act 1911 for only the second time in 50 years—and only 20 months into a Labour Government. We can see what the attitude of the House of Lords was from the beginning. Within 20 months they took action to try to stifle legislation coming from the Labour Government.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is clearly very concerned about challenges to this House from the other place. Could he tell us what will happen when this Bill goes through and the other place is reformed? Does he expect that the other place will always follow the line of this House, or does he expect it to challenge this House in the future?

Mr. Steinberg: If the hon. Gentleman listens to my speech, I will make that clear later. In the previous Session, even though the Conservatives had just lost a general election overwhelmingly, they were able to defeat the Labour Government 33 times by using their hereditary peers. Suppose the situation had been reversed, and Labour had had three times as many peers as the Conservatives. Is it possible to imagine the Conservatives allowing the situation to persist for 18 years? Would Mrs. Thatcher have accepted such a situation? She could not even accept that the Greater London council, carrying out its democratic mandate, should be allowed to continue. We all know what happened to the GLC, because it became a thorn in Mrs. Thatcher's side.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman seems to be confused. He said that the Parliament Act 1911 had to be used 20 months into this Government, but it did not. The last time that the Parliament Act had to be invoked was by a Conservative Government who were seeking to get their legislation past the House of Lords. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most of the remarks he has just made are complete nonsense?

Mr. Steinberg: I am not confused. I may be wrong and I apologise to the House if I am, but I seem to remember that the Parliament Act was used recently, and I was here when the Parliament Act was used to get through the War Crimes Act 1991.
We do not want to remove the ability of the House of Lords to ask the Government to think again, and Labour will not have an overall majority.
The hereditary system is not only undemocratic: it is unrepresentative. I am sure that the statistics have been cited many times during our debates, but can anyone really argue that the hereditary peers are representative when 45 per cent. of them went to Eton; when, of the 635 sitting in the House of Lords, only 16 are women; when 42 per cent. had careers in the armed forces; when 60 per cent. claim land management and farming as their occupation; and when only two—a staggering 0.31 per cent—are from ethnic minorities? Is that truly representative of the people of this country? I am sure it is not.
Many attempts have been made to reform the House of Lords—in 1911, 1917, 1948 and 1967. In all those attempts, the hereditary principle was not felt to be credible or legitimate, but all of them failed because of the smokescreen put up about what should be put in its place. Now we have a Government who will not be put off. The Tories have argued that we should do nothing until we have a total package—and we have heard that argument again today. They realise that that approach is a tried and tested formula for doing nothing and safeguarding their built-in, gerrymandering majority, which will continue to thwart Governments—as long as they are not Tory Governments.
The fact that the Tories now argue that we should do this or that gives rise to the question of why they failed to tackle this unrepresentative and undemocratic body in their 18 years in Government. Eighteen years of inaction speak louder than the weasel words that we have heard from the Opposition in the past few weeks. The Conservatives used the hereditary peers to force through unpopular measures such as the poll tax and rail privatisation. They need only 37 per cent. of their peers to vote to defeat 100 per cent. of the Government's vote. No wonder they want to keep the hereditary peers.
The Tories do not want to remove hereditary peers from Parliament because their presence means that, whoever wins the general election, the Tories stay in power in one of the Houses of Parliament, while a Labour Government get through only the legislation that the Conservative hereditary peers allow.

Mr. Nigel Evans: How many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents go to Scottish universities and are grateful to the other place for overturning Government legislation that would have charged £1,000 extra in fees to those of his constituents attending Scottish universities?

Mr. Steinberg: I have not got a clue. I will write to the hon. Gentleman—as the response goes.
The 1997 Conservative general election campaign guide said that the hereditary principle was
An asset to Democracy. Hereditary peers bring colour, tradition, youth and a wealth of experience to Parliament. They are a link to the customs and traditions that formed and shaped this country …It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right.
The Conservative manifesto contained three lines on the subject, opposing our manifesto pledge. It said that the Tories
would oppose change for change's sake".
That is hardly an indication of a commitment to democratic reform. If the Tories had won the general election, we would have had almost 25 years—a quarter of a century—of a Tory Government with no desire or willingness to reform the House of Lords.
The Tories' arguments have lacked any credibility. I was not surprised to learn that a recent poll found that 49 per cent. of Tory Members of Parliament did not want any change at all. Recent history has shown that the hereditary peerage is incapable of changing—and unwilling to change—to reflect the attitudes of society. The most recent proof of that was found in the results of the general election, when an estimated 5 million voters switched directly from the Tories to the new Labour Government. In addition, two Members of the Conservative party crossed the Floor to the Labour Benches. How many Tory peers said that they could not stand the stench of Tory sleaze, the little Englander mentality or the bankrupt policies of the Conservative party? None.
The Labour party gained more than 13.5 million votes in the election. With only 17 hereditary peers, Labour's representation in the House of Lords is some 797,000 votes to one hereditary peer. The Tories polled 5.9 million votes and have 300 hereditary peers, bringing their representation in another place to 32,000 votes to one hereditary peer. That is hardly a fair reflection of electoral support.

Mr. Fraser: For the sake of clarification, would the hon. Gentleman tell us the source of the poll on Conservative voters to which he has referred, and who conducted it? I should be happy if he would write to me on that point.

Mr. Steinberg: I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
The people would not stand for a House of Commons that had such an in-built bias. Why should we tolerate it in the House of Lords? The Government are determined to implement reform before the millennium to make sure that the principle of democracy—not birth, not privilege—should be our driving force. There will be wide-ranging consultation and debate. The argument that the timetable for that process is open-ended is spurious. The royal commission's terms of reference are explicit:
Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament and taking particular account of the present nature of the constitutional settlement, including the newly devolved institutions, the impact of the Human Rights Act and developing relations with the European Union:
To consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second chamber and
To make recommendations on the method or combination of methods of composition required to constitute the second Chamber fit for that role and those functions.
To report by 31 December 1999.
That is clear.
A tight timetable will enable the commission's recommendations to be completed in sufficient time for the Government to respond before the next general election. That shows the Government's resolve that there will be full reform of the second Chamber.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because he will make a sensible intervention.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I have listened carefully to his argument.
If the Bill is enacted in its present form, the House of Lords will be wholly nominated. Does he believe that that is democratic?

Mr. Steinberg: No, that will not be fully democratic, and I hope that once the commission has reported and the necessary consultations have taken place, there will be a democratic second Chamber. My own view is that it should be wholly elected. However, a transitional Chamber is better than what we have now.
It would be wrong at this stage to debate the pros and cons of the various options. There will be plenty of time for that in future. Whether the Chamber is directly elected, or constructed, perhaps, by having elected regional assemblies elect it on the basis of proportions of their political make-up, the most important point is that whatever the royal commission comes up with cannot be worse than the existing House of Lords. Whatever it is, it will be a damn sight better. I would go so far as to say that to have no second Chamber at all would be better than having our current system. I do not advocate scrapping the second Chamber, but it would be better than having the current House of Lords.
The House of Lords suffers a lack of credibility that makes the use of its powers almost impossible. On the occasions on which that power is used, it is deeply offensive in a democracy. Even a transitional House will be more representative, more balanced, more modern and fairer than the existing House of Lords.
There is no intention to change, reduce or emasculate the legislative powers of the House of Lords. It will still be able to act as a check on the Executive and on the House of Commons, asking both to think again. The most important point is that it will not be a biased, Conservative Chamber—a Chamber which has in the past been prepared to act as a check only on Labour legislation, and which has supported Conservative laws no matter how dreadful they have been.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: No, I have given way enough, especially to you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not given way at all to me. He must use the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Steinberg: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To be frank, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) gets under my skin and makes me forget proper parliamentary language.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be the first holder of his office to reduce, voluntarily, his own powers of patronage. He will give up his current right to nominate life peers, retaining the ability to influence only nominations from his own party. The Conservatives have been happy to continue with a Chamber dominated by inheritance and by new Tory patronage.
The Government have a mandate to modernise, and we are modernising schools, hospitals, the criminal justice system, economic institutions and our welfare system.
Part of the drive for renewal is the modernisation of the democratic framework of our country. We are not doing that for its own sake, but to make Parliament better. The United Kingdom needs a second Chamber that is representative of the people of the UK. The transitional House will be better than the one we have now. The royal commission has been asked to ensure that we will ultimately have a second Chamber fit for a new millennium.
Everything that I have said today has been said before in the past few weeks. It has also all been said before since 1911—on many, many occasions. The Bill leaves the Commons in the same shape in which it started. Now the Lords can have their say. It will be interesting to see whether they accept the will of the House of Commons and of the people. If they do not, they will show how out of touch they really are.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I apologise to the President of the Council and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for being unable to be here for their opening speeches.
It is our tradition in Third Reading speeches to discuss what is in the Bill, not what is not in it. I must say that that is a bleak prospect. Although we heard useful debates in Committee on the Bill, the fact remains that the Bill is at present nothing more than an act of destruction. It destroys finally what was for 500 years—until 1963—the primary foundation of the second Chamber in Britain.
I do not complain about that, because I do not seek to support the hereditary principle as the long-term basis for the House of Lords. I do, however, complain that the Bill puts nothing in place of the existing House. As the Bill leaves the House of Commons, it leaves the future House of Lords an entirely nominated body, albeit mildly but usefully spiced by the corporatism—the only corporatism that we have at present—of the Law Lords and the bishops.
The original justification for the hereditary principle in the upper House was that it represented the power bases of the land—as it genuinely did for many hundreds of years. Initially, peerages were not hereditary. The early monarchs summoned the great power bases of the land by sending out spies to all corners of the kingdom to find out who were the great men. Those men were then invited to attend the monarch's councils. Monarchs gained the benefit of the support—or at least the views—of the powerful, thus bolstering their royal positions.
The obtaining of the views of those who represent the power bases is today confined to a wholly nominated system. It is worth reflecting that we abolished rotten boroughs in 1832 because they were wholly nominated by powerful individuals. The Bill leaves something of a vacuum, and that requires us to focus on two points essential to the future working of an effective upper House—the composition of the Chamber pending stage 2, and what the royal commission should propose for that stage.

Angela Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be complaining that once hereditary peers are


removed, the only peers remaining will be those who were nominated. Does he not accept that all hereditary peerages are rooted in a nominated system?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The point about hereditary peerages is that they represented a power base. The only power base represented by currently nominated peers is that of the Prime Minister, or of the current parties. The nominated peers have no democratic legitimacy, a fact that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was good enough to recognise.
During our earlier debates, I set out in detail my views on the proper balance of the upper House at stage 2: partly nominated, as it now is; partly corporate, with some extension to the groups who find representation currently confined to the law and the Church; and partly elected for a substantial term on a rolling basis. That way, one can hope to recreate an upper House that has diversity, independence and a basis of legitimacy. I suspect that that proposal will gather a good deal of support in the coming months and years. Those who are elected must be elected for a substantial term and on a rolling basis, otherwise they will lack the essential ingredient of independence.
That is for the future, however. The Bill in its present form demands that we consider further how, in the interim, to recreate what is being sacrificed on the altar of modernization—the huge spectrum of experience and independence which, as Labour Members have been good enough to recognise, can still be found among the ranks of hereditary peers. The answer is readily to hand, for it is what the Government themselves, the Opposition and the whole country have been discussing over the past 20 months, first behind the scenes and then, since the Cranborne debacle and the Weatherill amendment, quite openly: that is, the proposal to keep at least 91—or perhaps at most 91; certainly approximately 91—hereditary peers in the interim. That has to be a sensible approach, because it is those 91 hereditary peers—in fact, it is rather more than 91, as I shall explain in a moment—who in practice do a significant amount of the day-to-day work in the upper House.
In my earlier speeches, based on research through the House of Commons Library, the careful work by David Shell in his book on the House of Lords in 1989 and some welcome further research by a body calling itself Common Sense for Lords Reform, which has recently circulated a briefing to all hon. Members, I have shown that the actual number of hereditary peers who still play a significant role in the workings of the upper House is not a mere 91, but is between 100 and 200. If it is ever possible to persuade any Member of this Chamber of anything, I should like to persuade Ministers that there is merit in considering increasing the 91 to a somewhat higher number for the interim period.
If Ministers are anxious that that might lead to the Government being voted down, a quick reckoning will show that that is not at all likely. On the basis of 91 or of 150 hereditary peers remaining, the Government would be defeated in the upper House only in circumstances where they had lost the argument—where they were voted against, not only by the Conservatives, but by the Cross Benchers as well. If the Government have lost the argument, it is right that they should be checked, at least to the extent that the upper House is entitled to check them. To identify those 100 or 200 hereditary peers and to permit them to continue to play an active role would

keep the House of Lords alive and help to restore some of the Government's lost reputation—a reputation that they were busy losing until they began to consider the Cranborne amendment.
Constitutional reform is not the perquisite of any one party, however large its majority after a particular general election. Although theoretically possible, it seems highly unlikely that we shall actually see legislation that details the future composition of the upper House during the lifetime of this Parliament. The royal commission reports at end of this year—a swift achievement indeed, if it meets that deadline—and consultation on its proposals or the options it puts forward will need to be exceptionally snappy during the millennium year if a Bill is to be drafted in time for the 2000–01 Session, which must be done in order to encompass the next general election. One does not have to be a cynic to doubt whether any Government are particularly likely to embark on such major constitutional reform in the final year of a Parliament.
The Bill as it stands leaves the upper House as little more than a destructive totem to Labour's manifesto pledges. Like so many of the Government's policies, their pledge on the House of Lords was shown to have been ill thought through at the outset. What is to come after the fulfilment of that pledge appears to have remained a vacuum in the Labour mind until public outcry demanded that the matter be given further thought. However, there is hope of redemption, since what the Government—somewhat shamed by the reaction of thoughtful commentators—are now, belatedly, thinking is based on the Cranborne-Weatherill proposals, on which the Government can build and I hope will build. That will not threaten their power, for the current Government, like most Governments, lose in the Lords only when they have lost the argument and are unable to persuade both the Conservative peers and the Cross Benchers of their case. The hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) shakes her head, but she has not examined the position. On the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the Government were defeated time and again because they could never persuade the Cross Benchers of their case.
Let us look ahead a few months, to the time when the Bill returns to us from another place. Let us hope that it contains, at that stage, clear provisions to preserve for the interim as much as possible—and almost everything is possible—of all that is still best in the current House of Lords. What is kept in being by the acceptance of the Weatherill amendment, or some similar amendment, will inevitably have been vitrified, and the position can be preserved for only a limited period—a few years—because there will be no opportunity for fresh blood to be introduced through the hereditary system, although some fresh blood can be introduced through the nominated system. It is to be hoped that, in the next Parliament, if not in this one, stage 2 can be agreed and we can have proper constitutional reform.
As I said, one does not have to be a cynic to wonder whether matters will proceed so quickly as to achieve reform even in the next Parliament. However, if we can make progress by keeping a sensibly active House of Lords in the interim and making the best use of the existing hereditary peers who play a full and constructive role, and if we can keep up the impetus to get stage 2— am glad that the hon. Member for City of Durham is keen on this—we shall have moved from an unpromising


beginning to the right way in which to carry out constitutional reform in this country, which is not through acts of destruction and revolution, but through evolution.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Like many people, I welcome the Bill—democrats have been dreaming of it and waiting for it for a century. It a great credit to the Government that they have broken a parliamentary taboo by introducing the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have enumerated the attempts made by other Governments which have failed, rather weakly and feebly. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the Government are doing something momentous in this Bill: we are rethinking Parliament, rebalancing the two Houses and rebuilding our political constitution. That effort goes to the heart of why we are Members of Parliament—what we do and what we want to do in this place.
As Members on both sides of the House have said, the Bill is only a start. It destroys one aspect of the second Chamber that is undemocratic—the hereditary principle—but does not touch the other aspect of the second Chamber that many of us find totally unacceptable, which is that it is a nominated Chamber. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) emphasised that nominated aspect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the rotten boroughs as being a different source of nomination, but—

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to seek your advice about a written answer that I received from the Chancellor today. I asked him on 10 March whether he had received, had knowledge of or discussed a Select Committee report on the taxing of child benefit—either a draft or the eventual report—prior to its publication. In answer, the Chancellor said:
A preliminary draft of a report was given to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, but not the final report.
That is surely a further abuse of the processes of this House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is impossible for me to deal with a point of order if I cannot hear it.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Mr. Deputy Speaker, given the huge import of that written answer—which displays the Government's total disregard of the House and of the public whom these processes serve—will you now adjourn the House in order to allow the Chancellor time to come to the Chamber and make a statement about exactly what he had to do with the leaking of that report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That information is sufficient to allow me to deal with that point of order. Select Committees have procedures laid down for investigating such matters and, if things are as the hon. Gentleman says, the Committee concerned will undoubtedly follow the

normal procedures. In any case, it is not a matter for the Chair, and it certainly should not disrupt this evening's important debate.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the point of order. We shall now continue with the important debate before the House. I call Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a separate point of order?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: It is a separate, but related, point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the matter for this evening. I call Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Fisher: I shall resume my separate, but related, speech. Here was I thinking that members of the shadow Cabinet could not wait to hear my views on the constitution.

Angela Smith: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order for hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Fisher: As I was saying, I think all hon. Members hope that the Bill will mark the beginning of the process that takes us towards a full and modern democracy. That process has two parts: the transitional House, to which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred; and the royal commission. We must also consider how the two parts relate to each other.
The Leader of the House talked today about the transitional House. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) that the transitional House will be better for several reasons—some of which he identified—not least because it will be a smaller House. The second Chamber has swollen to nearly 1,200 Members in the past 50 years. That does not make it an effective Chamber and, at the very least, this legislation—pace the Weatherill amendment—will reduce its size by more than half, to 503 Members.
I believe that the transitional House will be a better Chamber. However, for those hon. Members who, like me, want to see an elected second Chamber, it will remain totally unsatisfactory. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister will elaborate slightly on the remarks of the Leader of the House about the transitional House and make it clear that the Government would share a general democratic unhappiness if the second Chamber—which is a transitional and interim Chamber—were to be permanent.
The Leader of the House mentioned the virtues of life peers, their independence on the Cross Benches, their diversity and the expertise and excellence that they bring to the second Chamber—all of which is indisputable. However, the fact remains that they are not accountable to or representative of anybody and, in that sense, they cannot play a permanent and constructive role in our democracy—however expert they are and however great a contribution they make.

Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of that point means that it would be unacceptable for any political party to go to the next general election without a clearly defined policy on what stage 2 should be if we have not already achieved it at that point?

Mr. Fisher: I am sure that that will be the case. The royal commission will report at the end of the year and we will then begin a major debate. I hope that the House—perhaps the Minister will help us when he responds to the debate—will understand the role of the royal commission and its relationship to the Government's responsibilities. It seems to me that it is the responsibility of the Government—and subsequently of the House—to decide the principles upon which both the remit and the membership of the second Chamber will be based. It is not for the royal commission—a group of people—to consider fundamental constitutional issues. The royal commission should act as a gathering house for all views and should comment intelligently on the nuances of different approaches, their implications and what their implementation would mean.
We are dealing with a huge constitutional change that we have not addressed in this Chamber this century. The Government must lay down the principles. It is for the royal commission to do the decorative work and for the Government to establish the political principles. Although we do not expect the Government to make those principles clear tonight, I hope that the Minister will agree that there is a distinction between the Government's responsibilities and the opportunities that are open to the royal commission. There is a rather important distinction between those two things, and I hope that the Minister will express his views about it tonight.
I believe that this is a good Bill in that it destroys something that is no longer acceptable or relevant in our democracy: the hereditary principle. However, as other hon. Members have said, it is essentially a destructive Bill: it destroys something that is unacceptable but replaces it only with a vacuum or by implication. That is acceptable only in a transitional and interim sense.
Unspoken in the debate so far is the future of this Bill to which we are giving a Third Reading tonight. The strong likelihood of the Weatherill amendment overshadows our debate. If that is accepted, this Bill will go to the other place and return a completely different Bill: hardly a word will remain the same. Clauses 1, 2 and 4 will have to be completely deleted and rewritten. If the Weatherill amendment is accepted, we will see a wholly separate Bill. It was right to initiate debate in the House. We have had six or seven days of interesting debate, and it is to the Government's credit that they have given us that opportunity and are driving the legislation through. However, we must recognise that, when the Bill returns to this place following the Lords' scrutiny, it will be very different and we shall have to consider it afresh.

Mr. Michael Fallon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). If I may say so, I should have thought that he was an example of an hereditary politician whose family did not have an in-built majority, because they have been represented on both sides of the House.
The House has today received reports of the institutionalised shortcomings, at the very least, of one wholly appointed body nominated by politicians and heard much talk of the need for more democracy and accountability and an independent element in the European Commission. I find it ironic that, on the very same day, we shall create one half of a Parliament that will be wholly appointed and consist only of a Prime Minister's placemen and nominees. The Bill will turn the second Chamber into a quango or commission.
The Bill is short, but extremely dangerous. It will expel 40 per cent. of the membership of the Houses of Parliament without proposing how a future Chamber might be reformed or committing the Government to carrying through that reform. Hon. Members who have already spoken have referred to that proposal as the stage 1 House, the temporary House or the transitional House, but the only circumstances in which we might have been prepared to consider a Bill that set up a temporary House would have been those in which there was at least a commitment to the legislation that would follow.
The Government do not even do us the courtesy of including in the Bill a preamble that would set out that commitment. Previous Bills did. The ill-fated Parliament (No. 2) Bill in 1968 had a preamble and the Parliament Act 1911 had the now-famous preamble that has so often been quoted in our debates. When the Minister winds up, will he tell us—this point was raised about the Government of India legislation in the 1930s—whether the fact that the Bill has no preamble means that the Government regard the preamble to the 1911 Act as still valid? Is that why the Bill has no preamble?
There is no commitment in clause 4, where it could be enshrined, which deals with the commencement and transitional provisions. All we have to rely on is the curious sentence in the White Paper that states:
If there is consensus, the Government will make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament before the next election.
First, those are vague, heavily qualified words. No Minister has explained what consensus would be required before that commitment was deemed to be met. Secondly, the words commit the Government only to best endeavours; they make no firm commitment to introduce proposals. Thirdly, there is no commitment in that sentence to legislation. All it suggests is that the Government's proposals should be approved by Parliament. That could simply be a White Paper debate.
The House that the Bill will create is therefore one that we shall be stuck with for, I venture, at least 10 years, and perhaps 30 or 40 years. Half our legislature will be wholly appointed. It will be a permanently insecure House, and thus incapable of holding the Executive to proper account.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Have I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly? I presume that, if the Bill is so bad, and if there were ever another Conservative


Government, they would take action on it. He has therefore admitted that there will not be a Conservative Government for 40 years.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be a little too clever. I was suggesting that, if we take the Government's commitment at face value and if they are re-elected, we will not have a proper second Chamber, but will be stuck with the measures that we are considering tonight.
Because the Bill will set up a temporary Chamber—a House of insecurity—those nominated peers will, from November, be for ever anxious to ensure their own personal transition to any stage 2 Chamber that may result. If that is to be an elected House, they will want to be sure that, after tonight, they keep in with their Whips and central party offices. If it is to be a part-nominated House, they will be equally keen to ensure that they stay in the team. That will be an insecure House which is far less likely than the present House to hold the Government to proper account.

Dr. George Turner: I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about what the Bill will produce or what he imagines will happen after the Bill goes to the Lords. I should have thought that, unless we changed the nominations to make them annually renewable, once people were appointed to the House they would have an independence that many an elected Member does not have.

Mr. Fallon: But that independence is limited by the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman's Government are committed to one day producing a stage 2 House of which that nominated peer may not be a Member.
The Bill could have been improved by the amendment that was so skilfully moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). That would have introduced, upfront and honestly, the transitional element that was first proposed by Lord Weatherill—who is my constituent—before Christmas. That would have allowed continuity in experience of the present House, but it was voted down.
We saw the extraordinary spectacle of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) complaining about the present unbalanced and biased membership of the House of Lords, but telling us at the beginning of his speech that he would slavishly obey the party Whip to vote in favour of the Weatherill amendment that he voted against only a couple of weeks ago. I assume that he held up that situation as a model of democracy that the second Chamber should replicate.
The Weatherill amendment would undoubtedly strengthen the Bill's overall effect, and that amendment should have been made when it was first tabled. If the amendment is made, even the 91 hereditary peers who survive will still have to weigh up their chances of election or selection in any new model that is devised. They, too, will become part of a hostage House that will be less able to use even the existing powers of the Lords properly in case they accelerate their own replacement.

Dr. Starkey: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he agree that it seems to contain a

logical inconsistency? My understanding is that he is saying that the Government are highly unlikely ever to move on from the transitional Chamber to the final Chamber, but in that case the Members of the transitional Chamber will not experience any uncertainty whatsoever and will be able to be entirely independent.

Mr. Fallon: The Government started with good intentions. They probably thought that the whole process would be a lot easier and simpler than it has turned out to be, but we are unlikely to have legislation on a stage 2 House in this Parliament, as hon. Members who have spoken before me have said. Who knows what composition the next Parliament will have? The House that the Bill will create is likely to be around for a while, but working on the knowledge that its own legitimacy is not as good as it should be and that proposals for a stage 2 House can be made.

Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fallon: No, I must make progress.
Our proceedings have been enlightened by two very odd speeches by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), to which I shall refer. In a number of ways, he seems to be waking up to the implications of his policies. On Second Reading, he was fretting about the glue that held the United Kingdom together. He thought that it was dissolving under the proposals for devolution, and suggested that that might provide a role for the second Chamber. In this debate, he warned us, quite bizarrely, of the dangers of gridlock if we had an elected second House. Clearly, the architect, the Lenin of new Labour, is belatedly waking up to the implications of what his Government are doing.
The Government, too, have learned far too late in the day, as these proceedings have unfolded, that we cannot ever separate the issue of composition from that of powers. We must decide, first, what the second Chamber is for and, secondly, what its proper relationship with the Commons should be. However, there is nothing in the Bill about powers. A royal commission has been set up, but the notorious chapter 7 of the White Paper suggests a series of ways in which even the existing powers should be circumscribed.
The result of all this botched reform and the Bill will be not a stronger second House, but a weaker one—this, when the Government have a huge majority and are already treating this House with contempt. The Government will probably get their Bill through later tonight, but they will no longer be able to pretend that it is part of some serious constitutional reform. On the contrary, by this one Bill, they are simply expelling hereditary peers as an act of political spite.
That is not the Conservative way of constitutional reform. Our reforms have been evolutionary, gradual. We introduced life peers alongside hereditary peers, building on what worked, going with the grain of our constitution. This Government have chosen a very different route and a fundamentally un-British way. This is a lopsided reform. It leaves the House of Lords weaker and less secure—and, even worse, it makes for a weaker Parliament.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced this debate, she made the point that this is a very simple Bill. The arguments in support of the Bill are also very simple, although they have been considerably obscured by extremely lengthy debates on Second Reading and in Committee, through which I have sat.
Although the Bill is simple, it is momentous. I am surprised that Opposition Members have agreed that it is momentous. Many of them appear to think that it is quite a threatening measure; yet, although numbers swelled momentarily in the excitement over a point of order, the Opposition Benches immediately emptied once we returned to the momentous business of discussing fundamental reform of our constitution. That rather belies Conservative Members' comments; they do not really think that the measure is particularly important, and certainly cannot spare the time to participate in the debate on it.
The arguments over the Bill are extremely simple and very clear. Our lengthy debates have allowed the exploration of many interesting byways of those simple arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) amused many of us with his extensive research on the multifarious reasons why various people had inherited peerages. I seem to remember custard powder looming fairly large in the debate as a particularly derisory reason why one should be entitled to participate in proceedings in the House of Lords.
Opposition Members have deployed several arguments. They suggested that life peers, although extremely estimable persons on the whole, were incapable as a body of carrying the business of the House of Lords unless they were stiffened by the injection of hereditary peers. There was also an interesting excursion down the byways on the position of Lord Cranborne. I am terribly grateful to hon. Members who illuminated the intricacies of the fact that one family can have two seats in the House of Lords at once by sharing the peerages among them democratically—provided, of course, that they are all men. There was also an interesting and sudden recognition among Opposition Members that perhaps peers should be paid, which seemed to escape them over 18 years in government.
We have undergone a lengthy and fascinating exploration of the proper relationship between the House of Commons and the powers of the Lords. We have debated whether there should be only one Chamber—with which I do not agree—whether the final shape of the second Chamber should be decided purely by election, by appointment, or by a mixture of the two, whether there should be regional representation and whether there should be some representation of Members of the European Parliament. The royal commission will of course explore such matters. I hope that all Members who contributed to the debate on such issues will have put their ideas in writing and sent them to the royal commission.
Opposition Members have also explored how hereditary peers somehow represent the only protection of the British people from the excessive power of the Executive. I found that idea particularly curious, since it seemed to require Opposition Members to run down hon. Members—irrespective of whether they belong to the Conservative party, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. If they

think that we need hereditary peers to stand up to the Executive, they must believe that this House is not fulfilling its duties properly. I hope that, if that is indeed what Opposition Members feel, they will support the measures proposed by the Modernisation Committee to give hon. Members greater opportunities to hold the Executive to account. I look forward to seeing those Opposition Members who have spoken very strongly about the inability of this House to control the Executive being at the forefront of the debate on reforming this House and giving Back Benchers greater powers.
Although I have found all those arguments extremely interesting, they are largely a smokescreen. The Bill is about two or three very simple things, which I want to repeat to make clear. First, the hereditary principle in the legislature is indefensible. I think that the Conservative party agrees with that, and that that was the purport of the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox); although he supports the hereditary principle in the monarchy, he does not support it in the legislature.
The variety of arguments expounded by Labour Members on how Members of the House of Lords are unrepresentative, and those on whether hereditary peers are competent, are irrelevant. Regardless of whether they are representative, and they are largely unrepresentative, and regardless of whether they are competent, and some are highly competent, while others are less so, it is wrong that they should be in the House of Lords by virtue of their birth, and their birth alone. It is entirely irrelevant whether they are good or bad at their job. I have not heard one single Conservative argument to gainsay the fact that the hereditary principle in the legislature is indefensible. The Bill's purpose is to get rid of that indefensible principle.
The second reason why the Bill is excellent and an improvement to our democracy is that it cannot be right to have an entrenched one-party majority in part of our Parliament. I simply need to repeat the statistics which have been quoted over and over again in these debates which illustrate that the House of Lords is interested only in defeating Governments when they are Labour Governments.
According to the Library, on average, the House of Lords has defeated the Government eight times a Session when there is a Conservative Government and 63 times a Session when there is a Labour Government. Interestingly, the number of defeats is highest soon after a general election, when the Labour Government's mandate is the clearest. There cannot be a clearer demonstration of the fact that the House of Lords seeks to frustrate the mandate of the electorate when the electorate choose to vote Labour.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the hon. Lady accept that the only time that the Parliament Acts were used was by the Conservative Government against the other place when the latter sought to frustrate the will of the House during the passage of what became the War Crimes Act 1991, and that they have never been used when the Labour party has been in government to promote and ensure the passage through the House of Government legislation?

Dr. Starkey: Of course I accept that.

Mr. Tyrie: And on the Bill that became the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999.

Dr. Starkey: Yes, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill recently, but the hon. Gentleman cannot


gainsay the huge weight of defeats that Labour Governments have sustained compared with Conservative Government defeats.
Labour Members would cite the poll tax as the most obvious example of a measure that, although it was not in the Conservative Government's manifesto and was hugely opposed by all the professional bodies concerned with local government and local government finance, the House of Lords—which had a rather specific interest in it, as it was largely composed of Lords, not dustmen—did not seek to overturn.

Sir Patrick Cormack: As one who consistently voted against the poll tax, may I point out that it was indeed in the manifesto?

Dr. Starkey: I do not have the requisite manifesto before me. My recollection, having been in local government then and having had to explain to various voters, when the poll tax was implemented, that they should have noticed that it was coming, is that the Conservative manifesto said that the Conservatives would be committed to the reform of the rating system—it did not explain what the reform would be. It was the detail of the poll tax to which people took such enormous exception, not the fact that it was a change to the rating system. I suspect that we are starting to go off on a byway.
On Second Reading, some Conservative Members suggested that the House of Lords defeated this House more often when there was a Labour Government because Conservative Governments had much more common sense than Labour Governments. I was astonished by that view because it denotes considerable contempt for the electorate.
The electorate choose the Government. Although, naturally, hon. Members think that the Government of the opposite party is the wrong one and that the electorate probably did not consider things enough, it demonstrates contempt for democracy to say that the electorate are wrong when they choose a Labour Government and that the House of Lords is right to send back a Labour Government's measures.
The truth—which has been repeatedly stated in the House, including in the 1911 debate on the Bill that became the Parliament Act—is that the Conservative party favours the continuation of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords because it means that, even when it loses elections to the House of Commons, it retains power in the second House. That was clearly spelled out by a Liberal Member of Parliament in the 1911 debate; the Liberals were then arguing what Labour Members are arguing today.
Thirdly, the two-stage reform set out in the Bill is essential. It cannot be right that the membership of the current House of Lords should be allowed to decide the final composition of the second Chamber. That is why we must go by way of a transitional Chamber—ridding the transitional Chamber of hereditary peers, so that they have no voice in the final shape of the second Chamber, which will be decided after the royal commission has expressed its views.

Mr. Grieve: I should be very interested if the hon. Lady amplified her reasons why, in practical terms, that

is unacceptable. If the principle is established of change and of the hereditary element leaving by the next general election, why should the present House of Lords not contribute to the discussion, especially as, whatever happens ultimately, the House of Commons will have the deciding voice on the issue?

Dr. Starkey: It is obvious. The hereditary Members of the House of Lords have a huge vested interest. They are unrepresentative of the population at large. They represent, largely, a certain class of person, with a certain class of interest—and certainly with a certain gender. The reason for getting rid of them from the second Chamber is that they have no democratic legitimacy. It is for precisely that reason that they do not deserve to have a special voice, over and above anyone else, in the designation of the future shape of the legislature.

Mr. Grieve: Why, in those circumstances, should the appointees of previous Prime Ministers have any better right to decide those issues? That is the question on which I am trying to draw the hon. Lady. I understand her point about lack of democratic legitimacy, but does she not agree that those who were appointed have no more democratic legitimacy than those who are there by hereditary right?

Dr. Starkey: Life peers do not have any more democratic legitimacy, but they are more representative. There is a better gender balance among life peers, and there is a slightly better, but still not very good, representation of the cultural diversity of our society. Life peers have much wider experience than hereditary peers. They are more representative, but they are not as representative as one hopes a properly elected Chamber would be. They are an improvement on the hereditary Members of the House of Lords, and they are only a transitional Chamber.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Starkey: I am rather disinclined to give way to a Member who has only just come in and has not listened to the whole debate.

Mr. Clark: I have been listening to the hon. Lady from behind the Speaker's Chair. I have a huge respect for the way in which she expresses her argument. I hope that, if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be able to repudiate aspects of it.
The hon. Lady said that there was a better gender balance among appointed peers than among hereditary ones. Would she moderate her opinion of the hereditary Chamber, were eldest daughters of hereditary peers to be allowed to inherit the title and sit in that Chamber?

Dr. Starkey: That is, of course, an entirely hypothetical question. I am aware that a Member of the House of Lords tried to introduce such a reform at some time in the past; it would have been a slight improvement. However, the question that I was asked was about the transitional House and its composition vis-a-vis the current House of Lords. Therefore, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is not relevant, although it may be an interesting debating point.
The Bill is an absolutely necessary first step in modernising Parliament as a whole and moving this country into the 20th century, just before we get into the 21st century. To most people outside the House, the Bill's aim makes good sense and is self-evident. I imagine that most people would be amazed at the time that we have all spent discussing simple legislation.
I understand, especially as I have been involved in extremely lengthy discussions in the Modernisation Committee, that the main weapon of an Opposition party in this place is delay, but the Conservative party seems to have used the weapon of delay in the reform of the House of Lords not only when in opposition, but when in government.
I look forward to the fact that, 88 years after the Parliament Act 1911, which was taken by Parliament as a form of transitional measure—a first step, so to speak, in limiting the powers of the House of Lords, with a view to moving on to better and more substantial modification of the second Chamber—we are finally moving to establish a legislature that is based on the democratic principle and has no place for people to be Members by privilege of their birth.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I disagreed with almost all that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, except the last few words about a second Chamber based on democratic principles, a matter to which I shall return.
When we look back on these events in a few months or years, it will be clear that we were brought to a constitutional crossroads by the Bill. Either we will end up going down the road of unicameralism, or there was, and still is, an opportunity for creating a genuine bicameral system as a result of the reform of the second Chamber.
We have had six days of fascinating debate. A number of Labour Members, but some Conservative Members as well, at least by implication, have made it clear that they are unicameralists. They do not believe in a second Chamber; they want only one Chamber. Quite a large number of hon. Members have also moved from an unclear view to a much clearer view in favour of a second Chamber, many wanting an elected second Chamber. I remain firmly in the latter camp.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that bicameralism is essential to democracy, but we need to ask ourselves whether this Chamber, in its present form, is capable of doing the job prescribed for it in the constitution of scrutinising the Executive. It is the shortcomings of this place which make the Bill so relevant and important to our constitution's future.
With control of the business of the House through Standing Orders, with the decline of the independent Back Bencher, with the doubling of the payroll vote during the past 40 years, and with the supremacy of the Whips over both parties, which dominates the Chamber, the scope for genuine scrutiny, as traditionally used to take place, has been gravely restricted. The only exceptions have been when there has been a near party balance in the Chamber.
It would be inappropriate to return to 19th century scrutiny. I want a strong Executive, but with a duty to explain their actions to Parliament in detail. I think that few hon. Members sincerely believe that the scrutiny of the Executive in this place is adequate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member has now made sufficient allusion to proceedings in this House by reference to the Bill and he must now return to the Bill itself.

Mr. Tyrie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the inadequacy of this place that leads me to want a Bill other than the one that we are discussing tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to put that argument and he is now putting it for a second time, but he cannot use it as a bridge to discuss in some detail proceedings in this House.

Mr. Tyrie: Many accept the argument for a second Chamber, but none the less feel that we need go only as far as the Bill provides. Perhaps with only some modest changes further down the road, those people would be happy with that state of affairs. However, it is extremely unlikely that the Executive will be scrutinised effectively if this House stays as it is and the other House is reformed and kept broadly as an interim Chamber, as the Bill suggests. 
The risk is that the interim Chamber created by the Bill will feel even less legitimate, even less capable of holding the Executive to account than the existing House. The reason for that is fairly obvious. The interim House created by the Bill will have a perfectly understandable and overwhelming objective, a desire for survival, as anything called interim usually does. It will be vulnerable to threats from the Executive. It will all too easily be reduced to supine subservience in the hope of lasting a few more years. The biggest threat of all would be a whiff of a stage 2 with substance.
The odds must be that, when it matters, an interim House will toe the Executive line. The fear must be that a strong coalition could easily build up to prevent a stage 2 of substance ever coming before the House—a coalition between the Members of the interim House created by the Bill and the Executive.
Many on both sides of the House have also alluded to the power of patronage which the Executive will wield in the interim House. We debated that in Committee, and that remains a serious concern about the interim Chamber.
It is becoming clear that the Executive do not want to create a second Chamber that could ever cause them too much trouble. That is why stage 1 has been described as a stand-alone change, not dependent on further reform. The Government would clearly rather stop here. The last thing that the Executive want to do is to give the second Chamber any legitimacy.
I may be wrong and the interim House might push hard for a more legitimate and democratic replacement of itself, but it is asking an enormous amount of a group of men and women to plead for an opportunity to go to the gallows, and that is what we would be asking the interim House to do.

Mr. Alan Clark: The guillotine.

Mr. Tyrie: They will go to the guillotine, as my right hon. Friend says. That is exactly what will happen to


Members of the interim House if they embrace, or push for, a democratic alternative to themselves. For democracy is as much a threat to the lifers as the Bill is to the hereditaries.
We have heard that the movers of the Weatherill amendment would not mind stopping at stage 1—they have already formed that coalition. Lord Weatherill himself gave the game away when he said:
The government has got something"—
from this deal—
if its business is not disrupted … I'm saying to my friends I believe if this works, as I hope it will work, it's within the bounds of possibility that the Royal Commission may say this has been working well—let's leave it alone. That would preserve continuity …Surely a consummation devoutly to be wished!
Those are the words of Lord Weatherill on his amendment.

Dr. Ladyman: I am finding it difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. Surely it is ultimately up to this House to decide whether the interim Chamber should be replaced. Labour Members have said that they are determined that there will be a further reform, as have the Liberals. I understand from what the Conservatives are now saying that they are also determined that there will be a further reform. What possible political upheaval could stop a further reform?

Mr. Tyrie: The overwhelming power of the Executive to avoid creating something that might in any way interfere with their legislative plans and their plans to run the country. As Labour Members have pointed out, that has been a major obstacle to all reform of the House of Lords for so many decades after the passing of the 1911 Act. Only the Lords getting in the way of the Executive in 1911 resulted in any reform being pushed through.
I have read the White Paper carefully and I am afraid that I do not trust the Government's pledge to introduce a democratic alternative. Those are weasel words. The commitment in the White Paper is basically to reduce the powers of the second Chamber, not to increase them. The commitment to democracy is wafer thin and scarcely visible. It comes as an afterthought, framed with reference to opposition to the hereditary principle, rather than as a principle in itself.

Mr. Maclennan: Is not the hon. Gentleman rather underestimating the strength of his own arguments which, if deployed to the country, could make an all-appointed House that was anything other than an interim Chamber appear to be a constitutional monstrosity? Surely he is not alone in thinking in such a way and the Government are sufficiently politically astute to be aware of the power of his arguments.

Mr. Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman sits in Cabinet Committees with the Labour Government and I am sure that he has been persuaded of their conviction that they intend to introduce stage 2 legislation of substance and content, but I am a little less convinced of that than he. I gratefully take on board the idea that my arguments might

have some strength and merit, and I hope that they resonate somewhat. Towards the end of my speech, I want to discuss how they might resonate more effectively.
The most likely outcome of a coalition between the interim House and the Executive, which might be created as a result of the Bill, could be a damp squib of a stage 2—an unappealing damp squib, which would be quite the opposite of what the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) suggested a moment ago. Such a stage 2 would be little better than stage 1 and, at worst, could amount to little more than a retirement home for ex-politicians and civil servants with a few industrialists, trade unionists and the great and good thrown in, perhaps with a few elected Members from the new Parliaments—all bedded down on a reduction in the powers of the second Chamber, as set out in the White Paper. Such a Chamber could scarcely be expected to play an effective bicameral role. The risk is that, by then, we would be living in a virtually unicameral constitution—a one-Chamber Parliament in all but name.
I believe that only democracy can save the bicameral system in Britain. The only way to give the second Chamber legitimacy is to grant it a mandate from the people. Many Members of the House of Commons are uneasy about that idea. Would not such a system dilute our own legitimacy? Would not such a second Chamber encroach on our turf? Those are legitimate concerns, although I think that they are largely misplaced. This Chamber should, and can, remain supreme. I shall not develop that argument now, but I hope to do so when we debate the White Paper. In any event, the argument is more germane to the White Paper than to the Bill.
The Government have not been prepared to tell us where the Bill will lead. At no point have they been prepared to say what the end result will be. During our most recent debate, we have been presented with no evidence suggesting that we can rely on the Executive to secure and preserve a genuine bicameralism; nor, as I have said, can we rely on those who are likely to survive in the interim House to push through such a change.
One group, however, can make a major contribution when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. I refer to the hereditary peers. It is with those who are already condemned to death by the Bill that the best hope lies for a democratic and effective second Chamber. There is some irony in that, but I believe it to be the case. The hereditary peers can make that contribution because, quite simply, they have little to lose. It is the Conservative and Cross-Bench backwoodsmen who can play one last role on the constitutional stage, by making amendments to the Bill that can force the Executive back down the road of bicameralism. Unlike us, they can force the Government to deliver a stage 2 of real substance.
I urge peers to consider three amendments. First, they can and should add a "sunset clause": they can force the Government to present proposals for reform to secure an effective second Chamber, or to accept—after, say, three years—the reconvening of the existing House of Lords. Secondly, better still, careful redrafting of the Bill should enable them to add a clause specifying what they would reconvene to achieve. They should add a clause stating that, say, within 12 months of reconvening, they would send a Bill to the House of Commons providing for the replacement of the other place by an elected second


Chamber. That would enable us to debate the option of such a Chamber when the Bill returned to the Commons—a debate that we have been denied so far.
As for the third possible amendment, the House of Lords could reform the Bill to ensure that a referendum took place. The Lords should demand that, whatever the content of stage 2 and whether it is framed by the second Chamber itself or by the Executive, the Government should put it to the country in a referendum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair ruled earlier that, in Third Reading debates, Members can normally speak only about what is in the Bill, but accepted that some references can be made to the situation created by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman, however, is going much too far.

Mr. Tyrie: I am trying to say what I think will happen when the Bill goes to the Lords, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We already know almost for certain that a clause will be added to it; I am making suggestions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is exactly my point. The hon. Gentleman had a legitimate thread in relation to the first point that he tried to make, but he is now trying to build on that to go well outside the scope of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Tyrie: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
All the constitutional reforms that the Government have proposed since their election in May 1997 have been put to the country, or to parts of the country, in referendums. Why should not this reform be treated in the same way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems not to have heard what I said. I advise him to return to the terms of Third Reading.

Mr. Tyrie: I believe that, although the Government had a mandate to push through the abolition of hereditary peers, they never had—and still do not have—a mandate to allow the interim situation to rest where it is. Almost certainly, the Government's original intention was never to go beyond this Bill, which they described as a stand-alone measure. I think that, if they intend to let the interim House continue, they should at least be prepared to go to the country, and arrange a referendum to justify it, or whatever further reform they propose to bring about, in what they will then describe as stage 2. That is why it is a tawdry Bill. It lacks any clarity about what direction the Government want to follow in reforming the Lords. We have no clear description of what the end point should be. That is why I cannot support the Bill.

Mr. Martin Linton: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I intend to stick to the proposals in the Bill: stage 1, as set out in the White Paper. I have no doubt that we will progress to stage 2, perhaps even in the current Parliament, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House suggested.
I agree with the Leader of the House that stage 1 will be an improvement and a prize in its own right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central

(Mr. Fisher) said, it will provide a better House. It will be better for at least four different reasons, none of which seem to have impinged on the contributions of Conservative Members.
The first reason is purely political and I make no apology for making it. In the House of Lords, the majority are there by hereditary right. Out of the majority—those who have the writ, who are not on leave of absence and have the right to vote—80 per cent. are either Conservatives or Cross Benchers. While I do not imply that Cross Benchers are really Conservatives, on many issues, many Cross Benchers vote with the Conservatives. The net result of the fact that 50 per cent. of hereditary peers are Conservatives and more than a third are Cross Benchers is clear: the House of Lords is a Conservative House in its ethos and another hurdle for any Labour Government to deal with.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson): at the root of the Opposition's arguments is the simple philosophy that, what we have, we hold. That is at the centre of the debate. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) also made the point that that is the central issue for the Opposition. That is a prime reason why it is timely that we should deprive hereditary peers of their right to vote.
The second reason why stage 1 is a prize in its own right is that it removes the hereditary principle. I shall not insult hon. Members by rehearsing the reasons why the hereditary principle has no place in politics. All but the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) have finally come round to that view, although I mention in passing that the House of Lords is not based on the hereditary principle. If it were, I suspect that every hon. Member who is here today would be a Member of the House of Lords. Let me explain.
The barony de Ros is now represented in the House of Lords by the 28th baron. The barony was created in 1264. If we make the simple assumption that the first baron had two descendants and each of those had two descendants—a conservative estimate—there would now be 134 million descendants of the Original Baron de Ros. By all means check my arithmetic. That would mean that every person in this country would probably be a descendant of the original Baron de Ros two or three times over, and that is only one peer, so we are talking about not the hereditary principle—the notion that the qualities of the parent pass to the child—but male primogeniture.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman had better be careful because he is beginning to justify the continuation of hereditary peers on the basis that they are a random sample of society as a whole.

Mr. Linton: That is interesting, but the point is that those peers are not a random sample, but an arbitrary sample. There is a difference. They are chosen by arbitrary selection—the eldest son of the eldest son—which means that only one of those 134 million has the seat. It is not random, because they are not a representative cross-section. By the very nature of their upbringing, they comprise a completely unrepresentative cross-section. For example, 45 per cent. of peers went to Eton. That is hardly the mark of a random sample.
The third and—to me—most important reason why reform is good in itself is that many of the people who are now represented in the House of Lords are there


because their titles were bought. It is a stain on our constitution that, over the generations and centuries, seats in a House of our own legislature were effectively sold to their holders.
I do not dispute that many hereditary peerages have been bestowed on eminent people—admirals, generals, lords-lieutenant, governors-general—in grateful recognition of their services to the nation. However, many hereditary peerages have murkier origins, in some long-forgotten favour that the original titleholder did either for a monarch or a Prime Minister.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, I have previously mentioned one or two of the more famous cases. The Duke of Norfolk, for example, is in the other place because his ancestor was believed to have helped Richard III to the throne. There is also the well-known case of the four Dukes, who are there because their ancestors were the love children of Charles II. However, I shall deal not with such cases but with cases in which it is clear that the original titleholder gained his position because of a financial transaction.
Although monarchs very rarely give invoices when they sell peerages, in some cases, it is very clear that there was a financial transaction. The oldest case of which I am aware is that of Lord Teynham, whose ancestors bought his barony, for £10,000, not from James I himself, but from his favourite, George Villiers—who himself held the title of Duke of Buckingham. Another clearly established case is that of Earl Romney, who bought his title, for only £5,000, from George I. Earl Ilchester bought his title from the Countess of Yarmouth, the mistress of George II. There are many cases in history in which the precise sum that changed hands is known.

Mr. Shepherd: I am not sure what distinctions the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he not recognise that, in some cases, the holders of life peerages have made contributions to political party funds? One could perhaps say that that is not so dissimilar from the circumstances that he is adumbrating. I am not sure why we are going down this pathway interminably.

Mr. Linton: That issue will be for the hon. Gentleman to address when we are dealing with stage 2 and life peerages. I am dealing now with the existence of hereditary peerages, many of which are based simply on the purchase of titles over the centuries.
William Pitt was one the first Prime Ministers to sell peerages in a big way. He scandalised the aristocracy of the day by giving peerages to the new industrialists—the best-known case being that of Lord Carrington, whose ancestor was a Nottingham draper who paid the gambling debts of the Prince of Wales, who was later George IV. For his pains, he was made Lord Carrington. When he took his seat in the House of Lords, the landowners walked out in protest at the elevation of the first tradesman to the House of Lords.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was quite right to say that, this century, contributing to party funds has been the main reason why people are given hereditary peerages. The practice goes right back to the days of Arthur Balfour—who, in 1903–05, created the first press barons, and completely and overtly rewarded the first contributors to party funds.
David Lloyd George, the Liberal Prime Minister, took the practice on to greater heights when he created five press barons. He also rewarded many industrialists who had been willing to write a sufficiently large cheque to the Lloyd George fund. I have mentioned Lord Borwick, who was a custard powder manufacturer. There were many others, including the Earl of Iveagh, a Guinness brewer, and Lord Forteviot of Dewar's whisky. There were also many industrialists who made their fortune out of the first world war. Although Lloyd-George condemned people who made money out of the war, he also ennobled them—notably, that included Lord Forres, who was accused of selling oil to German nitrate factories, yet was rewarded with a peerage. There was the case of Baron Vestey, who gloried in the fact that he paid no tax, but who paid £20,000 to the Liberal party. There was also a famous retailer who was quoted as saying that he was not going to buy a peerage, but if he became a peer he would give £25,000 to the Liberal party. I could go on.

Mr. Alan Clark: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to add to his repertoire for the next time that he entertains the House with this list. He might care to remember Lord Farquhar, who elevated himself from a viscountcy to an earldom and was the treasurer of the Conservative party. When it was time to pay for the literature for the 1922 election, Lord Farquhar's cheque bounced because he had used party funds when raising himself from a viscountcy to an earldom.

Mr. Linton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is my parliamentary neighbour, for casting that light. Lord Farquhar's elevation was a classic case of the trade in peerages that went on throughout the 1930s and may have continued until much more recently. Even though the sale of peerages was made illegal in 1925, it continued apace with the elevation of known Conservative party donors such as Lord Brassey, Lord Palmer of Huntley and Palmers biscuits, Baron Luke the Bovril tycoon and many more press barons. All those families are still represented in the House of Lords.

Mr. Tyrie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a good number of the peers appointed by the current Prime Minister are listed as having donated more than £5,000 to Labour party funds?

Mr. Linton: I said at the beginning of my speech that I would stick to the subject of the debate. It is open to the hon. Gentleman to raise his point when we discuss the White Paper, the second stage of reform or the future of life peerages. I may well support him then. I am concentrating on the effect of having a Chamber of this legislature that, for 700 years, has been based to an alarming extent on the sale of seats. All the families whom I have mentioned are still represented in the House of Lords by their sons, their grandsons or their great-grandsons. All those who attend are Conservatives or Cross Benchers. In the next few weeks, they will have a chance to vote on whether to agree to their abolition.
The fourth reason why the Bill is a good reform in itself is this country's need to see the end of the last vestige of the feudal system and the aristocracy before the end of the century. The explanatory notes to the Bill say:
The Bill does not affect the rights of holders of a hereditary peerage to keep all the other titles, rights, offices, privileges and precedents attaching to the peerage which are unconnected with membership of the House of Lords.


Why not? Why do we want to keep in existence privileges and precedents attaching to membership of the aristocracy? Once the right of a peer to sit and vote in the House of Lords has been done away with, as I very much hope that the Bill will do, all the rest will disappear like a house of cards. There is nothing to the aristocracy other than the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

Mr. Grieve: Given that the hon. Gentleman is going on with this extraordinarily irrelevant peroration, would he care to comment on why the aristocracy in continental countries has been so successful in maintaining its position and status, even though it has no legislative function?

Mr. Linton: Far from it; the aristocracy in every other European country has no political power. In every country but ours, the aristocracy has lost any meaningful role in society. One or two titles may still be used, but that is all. The French abolished their aristocracy by the use of the guillotine. I do not advocate that in any way. The Swedes did the opposite, and circulated a memorandum to all Government Departments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into byways where he should not be.

Mr. Linton: I merely ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to explain the statement that the rights, titles, privileges and precedents of the peers will remain after the Bill has been passed.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I shall try to confine myself strictly to the contents of the Bill, and to address my remarks—in so far as they go outside that—solely to the issues that make me take the view that the Bill is seriously flawed. In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) referred to the hereditary principle's lack of justification. I have always taken the view that it is an historical anachronism.
Before I pass on to the contents of the Bill—and because I suspect that this may be the valedictory moment to say something about the hereditary principle—it is probably right to say that, in so far as it concerns the legislature as it has existed in this country, the hereditary principle has served us extremely well, and acted as the principal power to break monarchical tyranny.
The principle was established precisely because it was discovered that when people succeeded to hereditary rights, they tended—because of that—to be more respectful of other people's rights, rather than trample on them. It is for that reason that hereditary peers have tended to act as a check and a balance in the constitution, and why they have tended to be respectful of the rights of others.
That tradition continues to this day, and the various complimentary remarks about the role of hereditary peers—even by the Leader of the House—derive straightforwardly from the fact that most of them have a tradition of service, a good understanding of the limitations on their own rights and an appreciation of the need to respect the rights of others.
There have been occasions when this House has tended to be willing to ride roughshod over the rights of people, simply because it claimed an electoral mandate to do so. We should be grateful to the hereditary peers for having set the ethos in the other place, which has tended to put a check on this House, and has often insisted on rights and liberties that have subsequently been upheld elsewhere—even by the European Court of Human Rights—when we have failed to respect them in this place.
The hereditary principle is an anachronism—particularly when one considers the changed state of society. It was probably an anachronism in the 16th century, when there were comments about certain peers who were becoming too poor and were thought no longer to be able to represent themselves or their proper interests. This is an old chestnut.
The principle has become an anachronism because we live in a fluid society, and there must be good and powerful arguments why this House and the other place should look carefully at trying to find a replacement that might be better. However, this is where we come back to the initial problem. I am happy to go down that road, and I believe that the end result, almost certainly, will be an elected second Chamber. I do not believe that any intermediate stage will prove to be acceptable, or will provide the necessary legitimacy to the other place that is required.
I am even prepared, since the Government established on Second Reading the principle that there would be a two-stage reform process, to accept that we have to regard the Bill as the first stage, but I want to consider whether it is legitimate or could be improved on, given the Government's insistence on an appointed second Chamber. There are some serious flaws in the way in which the Government have decided to proceed.
The major flaw that will never go away is the issue of patronage. Labour Members have said a great deal about the lack of legitimacy of the hereditary peers because their ancestors were simply placed there by the patronage of others, but the new second Chamber will be based purely on patronage, which I find profoundly unacceptable.
It has been suggested, based on some comments in the White Paper that we are assured will be reflected in the way in which the Bill operates, that in certain areas, the Prime Minister's power of patronage will be curbed, because he will hand it to a commission or to other party leaders. That is all very well, but it would have been perfectly possible to preserve the principle of an appointed second Chamber as an intermediate stage and to get rid of the patronage of the Prime Minister and other party leaders altogether, replacing it with an independent commission. That would be the first and most compelling step in reassuring me that the future constitution of the House of Lords will be very different from what it is now.
There appears to be universal agreement among life peers that the much-praised ethos in the other place is entirely derived from the independent standpoint of the hereditary peerage, members of which are dominant there. I cannot believe that if we follow the Government's policy, we shall end up with an upper House that is similar, but with the illegitimate element of hereditary peers removed. I believe that there will be a rapid deterioration in the quality of debate and the ability to provide adequate scrutiny of the Government, because of the lack of that independence. I hope that I am proved wrong, but I have great anxiety about that real danger.
Anything that could have been done to remove the impression and effect of patronage in placing life peers in the other place would have been mightily desirable. It is a major flaw in the legislation which could have been remedied now without in any way interfering with stage 2.
If the Weatherill amendment is to be accepted at some point, our failure to make it now is simply wrong. It is an extraordinary way to legislate for the Government themselves to vote down a proposal that is thought to be acceptable to them.
I took it as a compliment when the Minister described me as being someone who comes up with bizarre constitutional issues. I find it odd, when we are embarking on a constitutional proposal designed to create greater democratic legitimacy—the Government's words—that we should start by failing to respect the established rights under our constitution of others, who are deprived of the vote in return for the right to represent themselves, for the duration of the Parliament in which they sit in the other place. Of course that is a minor matter, as there are only 750 of them, even if their vote might have influenced at least one or two results in seats at the general election.
The Government had available an easy method of passing now the legislation ensuring the oblivion of the hereditary peers at the next general election, and then setting about the discussion of stage 2 with the hereditary peers, who, knowing that they were facing oblivion, might have contributed the most creative discussion of sensible alternatives to succeed them.
The Bill will ultimately sound the death knell of the life peers, and I shall not shed many tears over their disappearance. However, there will be a problem if they remain as a powerful vested interest for their own position, balanced only by the small corporate element who are unlikely, because of the nature of the debate that will take place, to be willing to voice their views very forcefully.
Far from the Bill being a sensible paving Bill for a better and more accountable democracy, it is in danger of being the opposite. I accept that the President of the Council may have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with them and, in this context, the road to a permanent, appointed second Chamber is also paved with them. I do not want that and many Labour Members agree with me. The power of the Executive is the principal menace that threatens our democratic life and liberties. It is growing, and this Bill will contribute to it. For those reasons, I shall not vote for it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): This has inevitably been a wide-ranging debate. It is not surprising that it sometimes strayed from the contents of the Bill, given the importance of the issues. The Bill's provisions are clear, simple and straightforward. They are—perhaps surprisingly, given the sound and fury of earlier stages—now relatively uncontentious. I say "now", because the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) accepted that there will be no permanent place for hereditary peers, whichever party wins the next general election. I do not

understand why, having made that considerable concession, the Conservatives intend to continue to oppose the Bill. They have, in the short time since the general election, abandoned a fundamental principle on which they were each elected.
The Conservative manifesto made it clear that Conservatives see no need to reform the House of Lords and it contained no proposals to do so. It is now clear that, one by one, Conservative Members are ripping up the manifesto on which they were elected, presumably in order to find a new manifesto in time for the next general election.
As my right hon. Friend the President of the Council pointed out, notwithstanding the fact that we have reached the conclusion of the first main stage of proceedings on the Bill, we still do not have any clearer an understanding of the Opposition's position on the question of House of Lords reform. We know what the Conservatives are against, although it seems to be limited only to the contents of the Bill and—it would seem—any Bill that would deal with House of Lords reform in separate, discreet stages.

Dr. Ladyman: I must disagree slightly with my hon. Friend. He suggests that Opposition Members have dropped their support for the hereditary principle, but I have not detected that happening. Only a few moments ago, we heard a speech from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) who clearly said that he was still in favour of the hereditary principle.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend may have missed the significant speech in which the hon. Member for Woodspring said that, in the highly unlikely event of the Conservatives winning the next general election, they would not seek to restore the hereditary element to a second Chamber. In the light of that concession, I invite Conservative Members to consider why they continue to oppose the Bill. If that is to be their policy at the next election, we are surely assisting them by sorting out one difficulty before they prepare their proposals on what a reformed second Chamber should look like.
We have heard that the Conservative party is against the tradition of evolutionary change that is the hallmark of our constitutional arrangements. Instead, and quite inconsistent with the manifesto on which each of them was elected, Conservative Members have argued in favour of what has been described as a big bang. They have argued that all House of Lords issues—composition and powers—should be resolved at the same time in a single stage, however complicated the process.
I observed previously that a Conservative Government carried through the Life Peerages Act 1958, a single-stage reform that, according to Conservative Ministers of the day, significantly altered the composition of the House of Lords, improving its efficiency and operation. They argued precisely the virtues of single-stage reform to improve the operation of the second Chamber, just as we are arguing the same today to justify our reform of the second Chamber.

Mr. Tyrie: Is the Minister aware that when the Conservatives tried to introduce life peerages in 1958,


the Labour party opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and that Gaitskell made an impassioned speech against the proposals?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The Labour party opposed that Act, arguing that there should be more fundamental review of the House of Lords.

Mr. Tyrie: That is exactly what we are arguing. We do not want a half-way House. We want to go the full hog, just as the Labour party did in 1958. Allusions to 1958 do nothing for the Minister's case.

Mr. Hoon: The difference is, of course, that the Labour party lost the argument in 1958. The reform provided by the Life Peerages Act 1958 was a successful single-stage reform of the operation of the second Chamber. History has proved that the Labour party was wrong and Conservative Ministers were right in 1958.

Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend is beginning to worry me. Is he saying that the Government intend to stop at single-stage reform? The White Paper—and all that I have heard from my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons—gave an absolute and clear commitment to a second stage, presaged by the royal commission. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be a second stage?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because I would not want to give him or anyone else the impression that the Government were not committed to the second stage. I shall deal with that commitment in a few moments.

Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend accept that we will not know what the Conservative party and many Members of the House of Lords really think until the Bill is enacted? The argument over the Bill has been bedevilled by bluff and double bluff, by arguments designed to raise cohorts of opposition rather than to get down to the nitty gritty of what we really want. The advantage of proceeding as the Government are is that there might be an honest debate in the country once the Bill is an Act.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend anticipates my argument. By proceeding as we are, and by demonstrating our commitment to the first stage, we have opened up a serious debate about the second stage of reform. That would not have been possible but for our determined commitment to carry through stage 1, which has been advantageous to all those who take seriously the reform of the second Chamber.
We have not been told precisely what reform Conservative Members favour; no doubt, in due course, we shall hear their proposals. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made more eloquently than I can the observation, which I paraphrase, that the Conservatives' position is essentially, "Make me virtuous, but not yet." That appears to characterise their attitude toward reform of the House of Lords. From their opposition to change, we can conclude that they are at least being consistent—consistently conservative and, like all conservatives,

arguing that change is difficult, dangerous and will inevitably open the floodgates. Woodrow Wilson defined conservatism. He said:
make no change and consult your grandmother when in doubt".
Whenever I hear the hon. Member for Woodspring talk about constitutional reform, I am sure that he has consulted an ancestor before speaking, but that attitude has characterised the approach taken by all Conservative Members' towards each of the important constitutional changes that the reforming Labour Government have introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) made the point, echoed by others, that the Conservatives' opposition to the Bill is a smokescreen for their determination to do nothing, to preserve the hereditary element by default and to ensure that there can be no change at all because of the complexity of sorting out both composition and functions in a single stage. That complexity has repeatedly frustrated reform in the past. When we discuss the composition of the House of Lords, as the Bill enables us to do, Conservative Members furiously debate the question of functions, so it is likely that if we were to set out proposals on functions, they would get extremely anxious about composition.
My suspicion and cynicism have been confirmed this evening by my taking a look at the manifesto on which Conservative Members were elected. It contained no reference to any intention to reform the House of Lords; indeed, there was a clear commitment to retain the hereditary element in the legislature. It was an attempt to satisfy the electorate that the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom were quite satisfactory. The hon. Member for Woodspring has started a process of abandoning those commitments, but it has taken him some time to do so.

Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is on the subject of the Conservative manifesto, but I wonder whether the Conservative canvassers guide for the last election has been brought to his attention. In that document, Conservative canvassers were instructed to argue on the doorsteps in favour of the hereditary principle.

Mr. Hoon: Entirely by coincidence, I have a copy of that document here. It states:
It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right".
As I said, the hon. Member for Woodspring has moved a little from that position today.

Dr. Starkey: Does my hon. Friend suspect that that instruction might have been a last desperate attempt by the Conservatives to try to keep their voters with them by relying on the hereditary principle when the argument had been defeated?

Mr. Hoon: It would not have done them much good in Ashfield.
If one doubts the Conservatives' intentions, one need only examine their record of achievement between 1979 and the introduction of the Bill. Not once in that entire period has any senior Conservative Front Bencher called for fundamental reform of the House of Lords—or, indeed, for any sort of reform of the House of Lords.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I am somewhat confused, because I am unsure whether the Conservative party is being


consistent with its manifesto pledge to stick with the hereditary principle, or whether, in opposition, it is capable of breaking its promises to the electorate. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is on Third Reading of the Bill, not anything that is happening on the other side of the Chamber.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it is relevant to Third Reading to consider why the Conservative party might be anxious to maintain a composition for the House of Lords that is different from the one set out in the Bill. Judging from the arguments that we have heard in the course of the proceedings, because Labour Governments have suffered consistently at the hands of a Tory-dominated second Chamber, Conservative Members might be content to preserve the rights of hereditary peers precisely because, having lost an election, they want to retain their rather tenuous grip on some remaining legislative power.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If Conservative Members are advancing that argument, Conservative peers certainly are not. As evidenced by not just the arguments on this side of the House but the lack of arguments on the other side and the failure to defend what was accepted along the corridor, surely it is Conservative Members who are out of step. Indeed, Conservative peers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have heard quite enough about that issue.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but I will not risk your further wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point that I was setting out was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) who pointed out that, in the short time since the 1997 general election, the Labour Government have been defeated 33 times in the House of Lords. That point was developed further by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West.

Dr. George Turner: Can my hon. Friend think of any example when a Conservative Government were defeated only by the votes of hereditary peers? Conservative Governments have suffered a modicum of defeats in the other place but, on every occasion that I can recall from my interest in politics, they were defeated also by the Cross Benchers.

Mr. Hoon: I certainly cannot recall any such occasion.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—

Mr. Hoon: I see that I am about to get some help.

Mr. Garnier: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was about to cite an example that even the Minister will remember: the War Crimes Bill.

Mr. Hoon: The essential question that we are debating is whether the Government are right to make the reforms

in two separate stages. The Government firmly believe the answer is an emphatic yes, and there are several reasons for that.

Dr. Ladyman: Before my hon. Friend continues, he should refer to the occasion when hereditary peers in the other place kept one of the Conservative Government's Bills going. Hundreds of hereditary peers were bussed in to support the Maastricht treaty and force through a Bill that Conservative Members now say was completely wrong.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ever since the passage of that legislation, many Conservative Members have complained about the fact that it was passed at all.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not interesting that the only example the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) could give of the other place's defeating the previous Government involved the War Crimes Bill, which the vast majority of Labour Members believed was absolutely essential? We have no apologies to make about it.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observation.
There are clear reasons why the Government are right to proceed in two stages. Arguably, the least important reason is that it was a clear manifesto commitment. However, the Opposition must not ignore the fact that that commitment was carefully drawn, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) pointed out in his typically elegant contribution. Conservative Members should be cautious about the consequences of claiming too stridently that that is irrelevant. They should bear in mind also the thoughtful words of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
The commitment appeared in the manifesto in a particular form for several very good reasons. First, the hereditary membership of Parliament is, in principle, wrong. We are not debating the monarchy or the inheritance of a family home: we are discussing the power to make laws by which the rest of the country is required to live. The social and economic conditions that might once have been said to justify the hereditary element in the legislature have long since passed into history. Even in the heyday of the hereditary peerage, many of the most distinguished Members of the House of Lords were the peers of first creation, not those who sat as the result of inheritance. In those days, the House of Lords constantly renewed itself by new appointments, as confirmed in the interesting historical survey made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and the more entertaining survey by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton).

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he is just getting to the point, which is that, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, the Bill is destructive, whatever the Minister may say. What is important is what will happen in the interim between now and the second stage. Will he say a little about the contribution that the hereditary peers


continue to make and the plans that he and his Government have to enable them to continue to do so as long as they are not frustrated in their overall objectives.

Mr. Hoon: I shall not be tempted on to that subject, because it is not within the terms of the Bill that we are debating. In the event of such an amendment being tabled in the other place, there will clearly be opportunities for further discussion of that point.
The second argument for our proposal is that experience suggests that small evolutionary steps to reform are the way to make effective progress in changing our constitution. That is, as the Conservative party's general election manifesto indicated, completely consistent with our country's constitutional arrangements. I have previously related the comments made by Conservative Ministers in debates on the Life Peerages Act 1958 which support that view.
The House of Lords is not the same as it was in 1900. Its powers and its composition have been altered. Attempts in 1948 and 1968 further to change it foundered. Progress was made in 1949 because the then Government had a fall-back of partial reform already decided. This Government have learned those lessons of history.
There is also a practical difficulty in having any sensible debate on the future while the position of hereditary peers remains unresolved. By removing that issue, we are all forced to consider the future, instead of merely debating the past. That strategy, as I said in response to a question from one of my hon. Friends, is already working. We already now have a detailed debate about the second stage and what will happen when the Bill is passed.
It has been suggested that we do not intend to proceed with a second stage. I refute that. The royal commission has been appointed and started its work. It has been asked to report by 31 December. That is an entirely realistic timetable. We have said, moreover, that we shall use our best endeavours to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to approve the second stage of reform by the next general election.
It has been suggested that we intend to subvert the House of Lords in the meantime. Again, I shall set out the principles on which the transitional House will operate, in particular to answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in his opening remarks.
First, there should be broad parity between the two major parties, with appropriate and proportionate creations for the other parties and Cross Benchers. Secondly, we have made a public pledge to allow party leaders a free hand with their nominations within the previously agreed ballots. That is the first time that such a public pledge has ever been made, and we could not have expected it from the Conservative party.

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must make progress.

Mr. Winnick: That's gratitude for you.[Laughter.]

Mr. Hoon: Fortunately, I did not hear that remark.
Thirdly, there is a pledge to maintain the independent Cross-Bench presence. Those peers will be genuinely independent and can be life or hereditary peers. The Government are committed by our manifesto and White Paper to retaining that presence.
Finally, a power to recommend non-political appointments and to vet all appointments will be passed to an independent appointments commission, itself appointed under Nolan principles and subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That adds up to a considerable reduction in the Prime Minister's powers of patronage. It is the first time that a Prime Minister has volunteered to reduce his patronage in that way, and I hope that that is a complete answer to the criticisms of patronage made by the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
This Bill, despite its modest length, provides for a significant, long-overdue constitutional reform. It constitutes a vital step in modernising our Parliament, preparing it for the conditions of the 21st century. It is not simply about the legislative process and the role of a second Chamber. It is fundamentally about the rights of the British people to have the kind of government and legislation for which they vote in parliamentary elections. It is about the kind of democracy in which we live.
It is right to place on record the fact that we are grateful to those hereditary peers who have served with distinction in the House of Lords. The more thoughtful of them have known that there can be no real justification for their presence in Parliament. The time has come for them, and for the country, to move on.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The one thing for which the people of this country did not vote at the general election was a Government who would treat Parliament with contempt and seek to steamroller legislation through the House using their huge majority, and with absolute disdain for any other point of view. This debate has been a classic illustration of the Government's intolerance.
I do not remember any previous occasion in this House when the Minister's winding-up speech has been made before that of the Opposition spokesman. Nor do I remember an occasion on which the Deputy Chief Whip has so blatantly toured his Back Benches, asking Labour Members not to make a speech but to intervene on the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department so that his speech could continue for 25 minutes.
Before the Minister got up to speak from the Government Front Bench, several hon. Members—I can see at least two of them in the Chamber—rose in the hope of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not accuse any Government or any Opposition Member of trying to filibuster; this has not been a long debate. There were three statements and a ten-minute Bill, so it was 6 o'clock before we began Third Reading. Members on both sides of the House have taken a close interest in this Bill, and wanted to contribute to Third Reading. Had they all been allowed to do so—speeches were averaging no more than about 12 minutes—we would have concluded our proceedings at about 10.30 pm which is hardly a very late


hour of the night. Instead, the Deputy Patronage Secretary has been urging his hon. Friends not to take part. Then, the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing Third Reading.

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is precisely what we are trying to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and what some of my hon. Friends have been deprived of doing.
The Leader of the House described the Bill as significant, simple and exquisite. I certainly accept that it is a significant measure, because it attempts to re-write the constitution, and there can be nothing more significant than that. I accept that the Bill is simple, because it is very brief. But to describe it as exquisite is about as gross a misuse of the English language as I have heard in this Chamber.
There have been some interesting speeches, but none has been more interesting, and none more significant, than that of a fellow Staffordshire Member, my hon. Friend—I deliberately call him that—the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who made the very pertinent point that all the indications were that, when the Bill comes back to us from the other place, it will have been wholly re-written. I see him nodding.
There are very few precedents for such legislative change. The Leader of the House and other Ministers have indicated that an amendment similar to the one voted down in this place at the behest of the Government Whips will, if tabled in the other place, be accepted—as long as their lordships behave themselves. Then those very Members who, a couple of weeks ago, were dragooned through the Lobby to vote down the amendment when we proposed it, will be dragooned through the Lobby to do the opposite.

Dr. George Turner: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of Labour Members will go with joy through the Lobby to see the Bill reach the statute book, and that the vast majority of us will be delighted if it does so without amendment by the Lords.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I fear that one of the dangers of the present Parliament is that the vast majority of Labour Members would go through the Lobby with joy to vote for anything and everything that the Government sought to place before them. If ever there was a negation of parliamentary democracy—a denial of what this place should be about—it is that.
We had several significant speeches—

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I seem to remember that, some years ago, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues went through the Lobby willy-nilly on something called the poll tax. Is there any difference?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I never went through the Lobby in support of the poll tax. I consistently voted against it—I was one of only two Tories who did not support its introduction in Scotland before the 1987 general election—so the hon. Gentleman had better be careful what he says to me on that subject.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: But did the hon. Gentleman vote to set aside the 1689 Bill of Rights,

which allowed his friend Neil Hamilton to bring an action against The Guardian for matters which were being discussed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is completely out of order.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Had I so voted, it would have been out of order, but I did not.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) launched into an extraordinary diatribe. He said, with some reluctance, that he was not actually proposing the guillotine, but I nevertheless felt that the sea-green incorruptible Robespierre had been changed for the drab grey uniformity of the hon. Gentleman, who stands for everything that is colourless in our national life. The hon. Gentleman wants to reduce everything to a sort of digital anonymity; what a ghastly speech it was.
Tonight we are discussing the removal from the House of Lords of the hereditary peers. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and I—and our right hon. and hon. Friends—have made it abundantly plain that, although we agree with the hereditary principle, as anyone who is a monarchist or who wants to leave his house to his child must, we accept that the Government have a mandate for removing from the other place those who are there because of their birth.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that selection on the basis of first-born sons may be better suited to the biblical plagues than to British Parliaments?

Sir Patrick Cormack: When I look at the hon. Gentleman I am certainly warned of plagues, but we entirely accept that the Government have a mandate. We are very much opposed to the Government's giving so much priority to the Bill, but we accept that they have a mandate. We nevertheless believe that they are doing a great disservice to the institution of Parliament by the way in which they are proceeding. What the Government are seeking to do, by removing the hereditary peers without telling us in any detail what they have in mind for constitutional reform, is to place the institution of Parliament in jeopardy.
Labour Members said that the Bill would improve the House of Lords. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was especially eloquent on the subject. However, when we sought by amendment to ensure that the House of Lords could continue to perform its vital functions of debate and of scrutiny of legislation and its vital Committee work, every amendment that we tabled was rejected by the Government, including the so-called Weatherill-type amendment, which the Government, by their own admission, accept will be necessary if the other place is to function. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes. What we have been able to demonstrate as we have debated during these six, or, rather, seven days is that about half those who regularly attend the House of Lords are hereditary peers. By that, I mean those who play an active part in its deliberations.
I have cited before the fact that some 10 members of the European Communities Committee, which scrutinises European legislation, and does so to the admiration of the legislatures of the world, are hereditary peers. If we


wanted any reminder of the need for proper scrutiny of European legislation, we had it in the Chamber this afternoon, with the first statement that followed questions.
If we are to have a functioning House of Lords able properly to perform the functions that we expect it to perform, we must do something about the numbers. Every time we have tried to do that in Opposition amendments, the Government have denounced us; the Government's troops have voted against those amendments and we are still left with the Bill.
I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Bill does not mention the word "interim". The Bill will take away from the House of Lords a large percentage of its active and diligent membership and will put nothing in its place. Nor is there any timetable for the emergence of a new type of second Chamber. There will almost certainly be at least four years, and much more likely 10, of the so-called interim Chamber, which is not referred to as such in any part of the Bill.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is not the logical consequence that the Government, through an excessive application of patronage, will have to appoint a vast raft of new Members to the interim House, who will have no experience, and will therefore be unable to exercise the necessary scrutiny? That means that the Government will enjoy a huge majority in this House and will be subject to no scrutiny in the other place.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point.

Mr. Keith Bradley: (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 152.

Division No. 106]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Borrow, David


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Allen, Graham
Bradshaw, Ben


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Browne, Desmond


Atkins, Charlotte
Buck, Ms Karen


Banks, Tony
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Burgon, Colin


Barron, Kevin
Butler, Mrs Christine


Battle, John
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Bennett, Andrew F
Caton, Martin


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Chaytor, David


Berry, Roger
Clapham, Michael


Best, Harold
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Betts, Clive
Clark, Dr Lynda


Blackman, Liz
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)





Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coaker, Vernon
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coleman, Iain
Home Robertson, John


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hope, Phil


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cranston, Ross
Hoyle, Lindsay


Crausby, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


(Copeland)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)



Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dismore, Andrew
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kemp, Fraser


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kidney, David


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Edwards, Huw
Kingham, Ms Tess


Efford, Clive
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Laxton, Bob


Etherington, Bill
Leslie, Christopher


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fisher, Mark
Linton, Martin


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Follett, Barbara
Love, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAllion, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCabe, Steve


Fyfe, Maria
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Galloway, George
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
McDonnell, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McFall, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godsiff, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Goggins, Paul
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hepburn, Stephen
Meale, Alan






Merron, Gillian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Singh, Marsha


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Mountford, Kali
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Southworth, Ms Helen


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Spellar, John


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Norris, Dan
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Hara, Eddie
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Olner, Bill
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stott, Roger


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Palmer, Dr Nick
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pearson, Ian
Stringer, Graham


Perham, Ms Linda
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pollard, Kerry



Pond, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pope, Greg
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, Sir Raymond
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


 Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Timms, Stephen


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Tipping, Paddy


Prosser, Gwyn
Todd, Mark


Purchase, Ken
Touhig, Don


Quinn, Lawrie
Trickett, Jon


Radice, Giles
Truswell, Paul


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Raynsford, Nick 
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Vaz, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Walley, Ms Joan


Rooker, Jeff
Ward, Ms Claire


Rooney, Terry
Wareing, Robert N


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Watts, David


Roy, Frank
White, Brian


Ruane, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ruddock, Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Salter, Martin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Savidge, Malcolm
Woolas, Phil


Sawford, Phil
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. David Clelland and Jane Kennedy.


Short, Rt Hon Clare





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Allan, Richard
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Burnett, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burns, Simon


Bercow, John
Burstow, Paul


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butterfill, John


Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter






Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Madel, Sir David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maginnis, Ken


Collins, Tim
Major, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Malins, Humfrey


Cotter, Brian
Maples, John


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moore, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan, Alan
Öpik, Lembit


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fearn, Ronnie
Prior, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Randall, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Rendel, David


Fraser, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gibb, Nick
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gill, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ruffley, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gorrie, Donald
St Aubyn, Nick


Gray, James
Sanders, Adrian


Green, Damian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Grieve, Dominic
Shepherd, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Soames, Nicholas


Hammond, Philip
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hancock, Mike
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Spring, Richard



Steen, Anthony


Hayes, John
Streeter, Gary


Heald, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Horam, John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Thompson, William


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyler, Paul


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tyrie, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Wardle, Charles


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel



Webb, Steve


Keetch, Paul
Wells, Bowen


Key, Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whittingdale, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lansley, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Leigh, Edward
Willetts, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Willis, Phil


Lidington, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Woodward, Shaun


Livsey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. Stephen Day and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 340, Noes 132.

Division No. 107]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cranston, Ross


Ainger, Nick
Crausby, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allan, Richard
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Ashton, Joe



Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Banks, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dawson, Hilton


Begg, Miss Anne
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Denham, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Best, Harold
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blizzard, Bob
Edwards, Huw


Boateng, Paul
Efford, Clive


Borrow, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fearn, Ronnie


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fisher, Mark


Browne, Desmond
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Burden, Richard
Flint, Caroline


Burgon, Colin
Follett, Barbara


Burnett, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godsiff, Roger


Caton, Martin
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gorrie, Donald


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Ann
Hancock, Mike


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coleman, Iain
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Connarty, Michael
Healey, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hesford, Stephen


Corston, Ms Jean
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cotter, Brian
Hodge, Ms Margaret





Hoey, Kate
Mitchell, Austin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Moore, Michael


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mountford, Kali


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mullin, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jamieson, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Neill, Martin



Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pollard, Kerry


Keetch, Paul
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pope, Greg


Khabra, Piara S
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kidney, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kingham, Ms Tess
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Laxton, Bob
Radice, Giles


Leslie, Christopher
Rammell, Bill


Levitt, Tom
Rapson, Syd


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Raynsford, Nick


Linton, Martin
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Livingstone, Ken
Rendel, David


Livsey, Richard
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)



Lock, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Love, Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCabe, Steve
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McDonnell, John
Ruane, Chris


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ryan, Ms Joan


McNulty, Tony
Salter, Martin


Mactaggart, Fiona
Savidge, Malcolm


McWalter, Tony
Sawford, Phil


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Mallaber, Judy
Sheerman, Barry


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)






Snape, Peter
Trickett, Jon


Soley, Clive
Truswell, Paul


Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Spellar, John
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Steinberg, Gerry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stevenson, George
Tyler, Paul


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Vaz, Keith


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stinchcombe, Paul
Walley, Ms Joan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Ward, Ms Claire


Stott, Roger
Wareing, Robert N


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Watts, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Webb, Steve


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Winnick, David


Taylor, David (NWLeics)
Winnick, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Woolas, Phil


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Worthington, Tony


Timms, Stephen
Wyatt, Derek


Tipping, Paddy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Todd, Mark
Mr. David Clelland and


Touhig, Don
Jane Kennedy.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Bercow, John
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fallon, Michael


Butterfill, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Cash, William
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fox, Dr Liam



Fraser, Christopher


Chope, Christopher
Garnier, Edward


Clappison, James
Gibb, Nick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Gill, Christopher


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Gray, James


Cran, James
Green, Damian





Greenway, John
Paice, James


Grieve, Dominic
Paterson, Owen


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Pickles, Eric


Hague, Rt Hon William
Prior, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Randall, John


Hammond, Philip
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Hayes, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Heald, Oliver
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Horam, John
Ruffley, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Soames, Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael


Key, Robert
Spring, Richard


Kirkbride Miss Julie
Steen, Anthony


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Streeter, Gary



Syms, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Lidington, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, William


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wardle, Charles


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Waterson, Nigel


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Madel, Sir David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maginnis, Ken
Wilkinson, John


Major, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Malins, Humfrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maples, John
Woodward, Shaun


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Yeo, Tim


Moss, Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Nicholls, Patrick



Norman, Archie
Tellers for the Noes:


Ottaway, Richard
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. Tim Collins.


Page, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
I am aware of the long line of Home Secretaries who, since 1974, have risen to speak at the Dispatch Box, as I do now, to propose the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 for a further year. In doing so, many of them have reflected on the mixture of signs of optimism and violence that have characterised the preceding year. I, too, shall draw the House's attention to some of the key events, encouraging and depressing, over the 12 months since the previous renewal debate.
However, I am perhaps the first Home Secretary in 25 years to say that I hope that this may be one of the last—although maybe not the last—of the annual debates on the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. As the House will be aware, the Government propose the introduction of permanent counter-terrorist legislation, which we hope will do away with the need for the annual renewal of temporary provisions.
That approach recognises the sad but incontrovertible reality that even a lasting peace in Northern Ireland—something that we all pray and hope will be firmly established soon—would not of itself remove the need for counter-terrorist legislation. Terrorism, and the threat of terrorism from a range of fronts, is likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Although the focus of today's debate is on the renewal of the powers under our current prevention of terrorism legislation, I also intend in closing to say something about our plans for future legislation.
Looking back over the past 12 months, I am struck by what an extraordinary period of highs and lows it has been. Less than six weeks after the House agreed the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act for a further 12 months, the Good Friday agreement was signed. It was subsequently endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland and provides the means to take Northern Ireland on the road to lasting peace.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and many others on both sides of the House continue to work tirelessly with all the parties to achieve the full implementation of the agreement and to see the Executive established by the first anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. I think that the whole House recognises that this is Northern Ireland's best chance for peace in decades and it must not be allowed to slip from our grasp.
By contrast, the interception in July in London of six primed fire-bombs, and the appalling Omagh bombing on 15 August last year—in which 29 people lost their lives, and over 200 were injured—brought home forcefully the residual threat from renegade groups opposed to the Northern Ireland peace process.
Yesterday, we had a further shocking reminder of the depths to which terrorist groups in the north of Ireland will stoop. Rosemary Nelson, the prominent human rights lawyer and mother of three young children, was murdered

in cold blood outside her own home. Her death was claimed by the Red Hand Defenders, a loyalist splinter group bitterly opposed to the Belfast agreement. The proscription of the group and—subject to parliamentary approval—its specification was announced less than two weeks ago, and rightly so.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in mourning the loss of Rosemary Nelson in yesterday's terrible events. Is he prepared to examine the question of the security provided to Rosemary Nelson, who clearly was a target of extreme groups, and suffered accordingly?

Mr. Straw: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be happy to look into those matters if representations are made to her by representatives of the family of Rosemary Nelson.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary has invited David Phillips, the chief constable of Kent, to oversee the inquiry into Rosemary Nelson's murder. It has also invited the Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide an input into the investigation. Those measures, which the Government welcome, demonstrate the RUC's commitment to a full and independent inquiry into this terrible crime.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in conveying our sympathy to the family of Rosemary Nelson at this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that was reiterated on both sides of the House. We must restate our commitment to see peace established in Northern Ireland, and the actions of those dreadful murderers must not be allowed to succeed.
There is also the threat of international terrorism. The bombings—also in early August last year—of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, with the loss of more than 250 lives, were a shocking illustration of the scale of indiscriminate violence that international terrorists are prepared to unleash whenever they see their opportunity.
In the past few months, the horrific events in the Yemen, and more recently in Uganda—which resulted in the deaths of four and eight tourists respectively, including seven British citizens—have further emphasised the global reach of international terror.
Our response to all this is twofold. We will do all that we can in the international and domestic context to help to establish peace and stability, and, alongside that, we will do all that we can with the police and security agencies to counter terrorism directly.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend—a senior member of the Cabinet—reflect on the fact that, however terrible the events in east Africa were, we endorsed the American bombing of the A1 Shifa factory in Khartoum without any evidence—and, it now transpires, almost certainly no grounds whatever—for doing so? Day by day, Tornados and American aircraft are raining down mayhem on Iraq, and we are threatening to bomb the Serbs. Ought there not to be some reflection on the fact that violence begets violence?

Mr. Straw: I have great affection for my hon. Friend, with whom I dislike disagreeing—but, I am afraid, I do disagree on this occasion. There has been enormous


reflection on any military action that the Government have supported, as was the case with the American action over the Sudanese so-called pharmaceutical factory, and in terms of Iraq and Serbia. Before such action can be taken, there is a huge degree of careful reflection in the Cabinet by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and all those involved in those decisions.
I am not a pacifist, and I do not think that my hon. Friend is. There are occasions when military action has to be taken. There is a world of difference between action endorsed by the United Nations and/or NATO for a specific, lawful and legitimate purpose and the wholly indiscriminate violence against the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 250 lives were lost and many more were injured. As far as I recall, nobody was killed in the action against the alleged pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. The action was proportionate to the problem that the United States and we had identified.
The twin approach of which I was speaking was well illustrated by the recall of Parliament in early September to enact the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, to strengthen our anti-terrorist laws against dissident Irish terrorist groups and our conspiracy laws in relation to terrorism and other crimes.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State spoke about possible sources of terrorism, such as Iraq. What is the potential for extreme Islamist terrorism within the United Kingdom? There are links with the United Kingdom in the case in Yemen. Is there a growing threat within our own territory?

Mr. Straw: There is some threat within our territory. I must first make it clear that, although the phrase "Islamist terrorism" is used in common parlance, we ought to avoid it. We do not use the phrase "Christian terrorism", or indeed "Catholic terrorism" or "Protestant terrorism", to categorise some of the terrible events that have taken place in Northern Ireland. We avoid implying that the religions followed entirely lawfully by the vast majority of people are somehow a cause of terrorist activities. The overwhelming majority of followers of Islam here, as in every other country, are wholly law abiding.
The problem is middle eastern terrorism based on territorial challenges and on tribalism, which seeks to justify itself by reference to Islam. The lawful Islamic groups in this country are very sensitive on the matter. I make that point at some length because it is a real issue of sensitivity for the British Muslim community, which is entirely lawful. Middle eastern terrorism is an acknowledged threat, and the security and intelligence agencies and the police take it very seriously and monitor it carefully.
The key to the prevention of terrorism is to ensure that the police and others have all the powers that they need to deter, disrupt and investigate. I pay tribute to the diligence, the immense hard work and the bravery of the police and the security forces in their daily efforts on our behalf.
Informing our debate today is the report prepared by John Rowe QC. I am very grateful to Mr. Rowe for the work that he has undertaken in the past 12 months, as he

has in previous years. He advises that the powers in the Act, including the powers of arrest, detention and stop and search, and the terrorist investigation powers, were all used appropriately and proportionately in 1998 and should remain in force for 1999. As exclusion order powers were not included in last year's order, Mr. Rowe has not considered those powers in his report.
The order does not contain exclusion powers. It has been the Government's long-standing view that exclusion orders are wrong on policy grounds—in that they may be used to exclude British citizens by Executive order from part of the national territory—and that they have in any case proved to be of limited utility.
As long as the powers remain on the statute book, as they will have to until there is primary legislation, they could of course be reactivated on security grounds, but I find it hard to conceive of the circumstances in which I would decide that that would be expedient, and our consultation paper on our proposals for future legislation makes it clear that we do not envisage carrying them across into our new permanent anti-terrorist laws. Of course our ability, under the Immigration Act 1971, to deport, or deny entry to, suspected international terrorists will remain unchanged.
Returning to the issues raised in Mr. Rowe's report, I was especially pleased to read of the care that he found was taken in respect of all the relatively small number of complaints received about the operation of the powers under the prevention of terrorism Act. We must never lose sight of the fact that the powers available under this legislation are exceptional and must be exercised with the utmost integrity and diligence. It is absolutely right that any complaints are treated seriously. Therefore, it is pleasing and reassuring to learn that there were relatively few complaints in 1998 and that Mr. Rowe considers that all those were dealt with conscientiously.
The specific anti-terrorist provisions in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which amended sections of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, also fall to be renewed for the first time in the order before the House. I shall remind the House what those measures mean. First, they mean that the opinion of a senior police officer is admissible in court as evidence of membership of proscribed and specified terrorist organisations. That includes the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA but, subject to parliamentary approval, not the Irish National Liberation Army. Secondly, courts may draw inferences from a suspect's refusal to answer questions during an investigation into membership of a proscribed and specified terrorist group. As hon. Members may remember, it is not possible, under the legislation, for a suspect to he convicted solely on the basis of inferences allowed under the Act or on the statement of a police officer alone.
As Mr. Rowe points out in his report, there have not so far been any convictions in connection with the new provisions, but that cannot be the sole criterion for judging their effectiveness. The measures were introduced as a targeted response to the small, but very dangerous, renegade groups who are bent on destroying the Northern Ireland peace process, and have no regard for the human life that they would destroy at the same time. The fact that similar action was also taken in September in the Irish


Parliament sent a powerful signal of the total repudiation from people both sides of the border of those renegade groups and all that they stand for.
However, the provisions are more than a symbolic gesture. They are there so that it is possible to take robust action against any who, in the face of the express wishes of the people of the island of Ireland, choose to support groups not observing total and unequivocal ceasefires. All of us hope that the support for those groups withers away, but, if it does not, the strengthened provisions are there to assist in bringing those people to book.
That leads me to touch on the observations that Mr. Rowe offers in his report about the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and the European convention on human rights. In his report, Mr. Rowe concludes that most of the measures in the Act do not raise issues of possible incompatibility. Indeed, he points out that, although it has been possible for individuals to bring cases to the European Court of Human Rights since 1966, only two cases have been dealt with by the court in all that time, and a violation was found in only one of those. It is fair to say, therefore, that our ECHR record, vis-a-vis the prevention of terrorism Act, is good.
However, Mr. Rowe does raise concerns about the compatibility of the new membership provisions, enacted last September, with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which provides for a right to a fair trial. It may not surprise the House to learn that I part company with him on that point. I can assure the House, as I made clear when the emergency legislation was introduced in September, that the whole issue of compatibility with the ECHR was looked at extremely closely before the Bill was published and that I was, and remain, satisfied that the provisions are compatible with the convention. We would not have introduced the legislation in that form if we had believed that it was incompatible with our obligations under the convention.
We have, of course, looked again at the provisions in the light of the specific points made by Mr. Rowe in his report, and I do not lightly take issue with his conclusions, but his arguments—which we have studied with great care—have not caused us to change our position. That is something on which we will have to agree to differ, unless and until these questions are settled in the courts. As Mr. Rowe himself has pointed out, his conclusions are very provisional indeed, and the matter will ultimately be decided by the courts.
I shall make a few remarks about our proposals for new counter-terrorist legislation. The House will be aware that the Government issued a consultation paper, "Legislation Against Terrorism", just before Christmas, inviting, as it happens, responses by 16 March, which is today. In it, we argued that, because of the range of terrorist threats that the United Kingdom faces, there will be a need for continuous United Kingdom-wide anti-terrorist powers, even when lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Gray: Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to feel the slightest twinge of embarrassment at the fact that, from 1983 to 1995, the Labour party consistently opposed renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act? Will he apologise to the

nation for getting it wrong for 12 years? His remarks tonight make it quite clear that we were right to renew the Act on every occasion.

Mr. Straw: I am not remotely going to apologise, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to mix it in what ought to be a bipartisan debate. If he cares to read the debates over the years—I have studied every one of them—he will find that there was never an argument about the need for anti-terrorist legislation. We never made that argument, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear during his first debate as shadow Home Secretary in 1993, and again in 1994.
Our arguments were about proportionality in the use of the powers, which was on a different scale during the 1980s. We also argued over the question of a judicial element in extensions of detention and, in particular, over the use of exclusion powers. We have made it clear that there will in future be a judicial element to extensions of detention. As for exclusion powers, I have done exactly what I told the House we would do when I spoke in the final two PTA debates before the general election. I said that we would not use the exclusion orders, and they were wound down quickly after the election. They have since been suspended from the face of the Bill.
As is widely recognised, the time has come to put anti-terrorist legislation on a permanent footing. We envisage legislation that is flexible enough to be able to respond to the ever-changing nature of terrorism, that is effective and proportionate to the threat that the UK faces, that protects the rights of individuals and that complies with our international commitments.
We hope and expect that, by the time new legislation is introduced, the threat from Irish terrorism should have diminished to the point at which no additional special powers are necessary to combat it. If the security situation suggests that some particular measure is needed, it will be included in a temporary additional section of the Act, subject, as the prevention of terrorism Act is at present, to annual independent review and to Parliament's annual approval to its staying in force. Whatever the circumstances in Northern Ireland, we shall ensure that powers necessary to the security forces in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK will be on the statute book and will be available to the security forces and the police.
This is not the place to detail the measures that we propose to take. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have had the opportunity to read our paper. We are determined to strike the right balance between giving the police and other agencies the powers that they need to fight terrorism and guarding the civil liberties of people affected by the exercise of those powers. We recognise that it will not be an easy task, and we will carefully consider all the responses that we receive to our consultation document.
Let me turn again to the focus of today's debate. The question before us is whether the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should remain in force for a further 12 months. I judge that it is vital that those engaged in the fight against terrorism should have the powers that they need. The Act must therefore be renewed.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to Mr. Rowe for his report. The report argues—to my mind, utterly convincingly—that the Act is needed for a further year, and we support that continuance absolutely. If any extra argument were needed, that was provided by the appalling murder of Rosemary Nelson this week—something that the whole House deplores as yet another example of the sickening use of the car bomb by a terrorist group. I applaud the action of the Chief Constable of the RUC in emphasising the independence of the investigation into that murder.
Such terrorist atrocities have continued for more than 30 years. When I was a journalist on The Times, I was sent to cover some of the earliest violence in the late 1960s, and that violence has continued throughout the time that I have been a Member of Parliament. During my days as a journalist, I spent some time with the RUC and the then Chief Constable; a lasting result of that experience is a great admiration for the men and women of the RUC, who have suffered terrible casualties in the battles and actions in which they have taken part, year after year.
What is significant about Mr. Rowe's report is that it demonstrates that, even in 1998, the level of violence was enormous and the terrorist challenge immense. Chapter 4 succinctly describes the situation in Northern Ireland:
Paramilitary organisations are still in being, and some of them have not announced a ceasefire. There are dissident elements who are intent upon causing injury and damage, and they have the capacity to do so. All in all there is a real threat that some terrorist activity will continue in Northern Ireland and there is no reason to think that it will not extend to Great Britain.
Mr. Rowe continues:
There have been explosions of bombs, and attempts to carry our bombing attacks … There have been hundreds of beatings carried out for a paramilitary purpose, many of them in circumstances of great brutality, and some of them ending in death.
He adds that, in 1998:
In Northern Ireland there have been 55 deaths, caused by terrorist attacks.
He ends:
My conclusion is this: criminals with a terrorist or paramilitary disposition have the means to carry out attacks with explosives and firearms at any time; furthermore, some of them have maintained an organisation which has structure and influence. Therefore there is a need for the PTA so far as concerns terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I entirely agree with him, and accept his conclusion.
The Conservatives' position is that the Belfast agreement offers the prospect of a genuine and lasting peace underpinned by stable political institutions. There is now a real chance that the terrorist events that have characterised the past 30 years might be brought to an end, but no one should doubt that difficulties still lie ahead. The peace in Northern Ireland is in many respects imperfect. The main terrorist organisations, with their command and control structures, remain firmly intact; they are continuing to target potential victims and recruit and train members. Far from making a start on decommissioning their illegally held arms and explosives as they are required to do under the Belfast agreement, the evidence suggests that, at times, they are even seeking new and more sophisticated weaponry.
Even in the event of the agreement succeeding, the terrorist threat is likely to remain at a high level, perhaps for some time. As the Home Secretary said, the Omagh bombing in 1998—the single worst atrocity of the past 30 years—was carried out by a republican splinter group; and the murder of Rosemary Nelson is the work of another splinter group. The terrorist threat remains, but it is by no means confined to Northern Ireland: there are other forms of domestic terrorism and the problems of international terrorism, to which the Home Secretary has referred. The Government's consultation paper rightly points out that, not only has the threat from such groups increased in recent years, but they have access to increasingly sophisticated weapons and methods. That was recognised by the previous Conservative Government, who extended the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to cover that development.
Faced with the continuing threat from all forms of terrorism, Conservative Members support unequivocally renewing the legislation for a further year. We have always taken the strongest stance against terrorism and backed measures designed to deal effectively with it.

Mr. Steve McCabe: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the persistent, and perhaps tedious, interventions by his hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) of the kind that we have witnessed most recently—suggesting repeatedly that the Labour party is opposed to this approach—undermine the sincerity of his bipartisan case? Does the right hon. Gentleman regret his hon. Friend's interventions?

Sir Norman Fowler: I do not regret my hon. Friend's interventions. I add, in passing, that our backing for the Government on the Prevention of Terrorism Act contrasts with the actions of the then Labour Opposition. From 1983 to 1995, Labour opposed the Act's annual renewal. In 1995, Labour took the decision to abstain from the vote—the Home Secretary appears to find this rather amusing, but he abstained in 1995. I do not intend to mix it in any shape or form, but I must point out that Labour has changed its position. We welcome that, and we will support that position in a bipartisan manner—which is exactly what we are doing.
We also believe that the improvements in the security situation made possible by the progress in Northern Ireland make this an opportune time to examine the future requirements of the United Kingdom in respect of counter-terrorist legislation. We are examining the Government's consultation paper. The Government's recommendations build, in large part, upon the work of Lord Lloyd, and make practical sense. Like Lloyd, they are predicated on the establishment of lasting peace in Northern Ireland. While we agree that it is right to move forward in this area, nothing should be contemplated that diminishes our ability to deal with the existing threat and any threat that might occur in the future.
Therefore, I add one point about the position in Northern Ireland. We know the difficulties and the dangers. Successive Governments have worked for peace, and the position is more hopeful now than it has been for the past 30 years. As the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, put it:
Despite all of these barriers to the ultimate elimination of violence, there remains a solid basis for optimism and hope for the future. Of course, there will be setbacks. Of course there will be


attempted attacks by those desperate to resist peace and reconciliation but the overwhelming trend of movement is clearly in the positive direction. Things have changed dramatically for the good and all those of influence must continue to positively exert that influence".
They are wise words, and it is very much in that spirit that we support the order.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am concerned about one thing: misdirected vengeance. For example, nearly two years ago, with the Home Secretary's agreement, I went to Scotland Yard to see Assistant Commissioner David Veness about the brutal murder of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher. That case has repeatedly been given as a reason for our maintaining support for rather brutal sanctions against Libya. If there were no doubt whatever about that case, that position would at least be understandable, but Scotland Yard continues to press for a decision—I am told that one is just around the corner—on an investigation that I do not doubt they take extremely seriously.
David Veness said to me, "We have about half a dozen cases that, above all, we really want to solve. Yvonne Fletcher was one of our own. You can take it, Mr. Dalyell, that we really want to solve that case." I do not doubt that Scotland Yard is working extremely hard on it. Will the Home Secretary therefore tell the House when that case is likely to be concluded? If there is a degree of uncertainty about that case, how in heaven's name can it be a basis for international policy?
Reference was made earlier to the Al Shifa factory. I have been to see R. J. P. Williams, who has been a fellow of Wadham college at Oxford for some 40 years and is professor of inorganic chemistry at that university, a Royal Society professor and the greatest European expert on EMTA, or O ethyl methyl phosphonoic acid. In long letters which make up part of a huge correspondence with the Prime Minister, Professor Williams says that he is now certain that the Al Shifa factory had nothing whatever to do with the VX precursors that apparently caused all the trouble. He said also that anyone would have to be out of their mind to make VX precursors in a factory that did not even have airtight doors in a built-up area in a capital city. No one would do that.
There comes a time when we say that the vengeance that has been wreaked is ill-directed and wrong. This is not the occasion, in such a short debate, to take up time discussing Iraq, but I plead with a senior member of the Cabinet to imagine what it must be like for traumatised kids and old people to face the threat of bombing night after night. I say gently to the Home Secretary that those of us who are of a generation that has done national service or have experience of Northern Ireland—a subject on which I speak with great humility—know what horror is being unleashed. Is there a moral justification for that? What justifies it?
A brutal fact must be faced: in whole swathes of Africa and Asia, let alone the Arab world, President Clinton and the British Prime Minister, Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary are regarded as terrorists. That is very disagreeable for us, but it is nevertheless a fact. Once we start unleashing such bombs, God help us if we try to take on the Slays, with all that that entails. We are tarred with that which we deprecate. I shall leave it at that, but I should like the Home Secretary to comment on the Fletcher situation.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: In previous debates on our annual review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, hon. Members may sometimes have felt a sense of deja vu as seasoned participants recited their well-known and well-rehearsed positions. This year, the debate is different. For the first time in our review of anti-terrorism legislation, we may consider aspects of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 and take into account the implications for the PTA of the Human Rights Act 1998. Also for the first time, we can take into account the Government's wider thinking on anti-terrorism legislation, as outlined in the Home Office consultation paper. Each of those factors is novel to this debate.
As Mr. Rowe makes clear in his report, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 will affect the implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, not least where the PTA gives effect to the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. Mr. Rowe's report does not make entirely encouraging reading. It opens the Government to the accusation that what they are trying to do with one Act, the renewal of the PTA, they undermine with another, the Human Rights Act 1998.
Under the Human Rights Act, the courts will be required to interpret the PTA to uphold the European convention on human rights. The fact that they will be required to take into account any relevant judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and the fact that case law of the European Court will be part of the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom may, as Mr. Rowe acknowledges, affect the implementation of the PTA—some parts more than others. From now on, to a far greater extent, the important matter will be how the powers of the PTA have been exercised in an individual case.
The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act—I make this point in relation to what has been said earlier in this debate—has not had any effect on the pursuit of the Omagh bombers.
Section 2A of the PTA, which was introduced under the terrorism and conspiracy Act, provides that on a charge of membership of a proscribed organisation, a police officer may give evidence that in his opinion the defendant belongs to a specified organisation. There is legitimate cause for concern here. Paragraph 58 of Mr. Rowe's report states:
In my view there may, in the use and application of this section, be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, where the police officer speaks of what another person … told him, or what sensitive information tells him.
On inference from silence, Mr. Rowe comments in paragraph 62 in respect of the Human Rights Act:
Whether there will be a breach of the European Convention will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that the matter goes beyond simply a possible breach of the European convention? We were certainly led to believe in debates on incorporating the convention that it was the bottom line. Does he therefore agree that simply as a departure from normal legal practice in this country, the two provisions to which he has referred ought to give cause for considerable concern?

Mr. Hunter: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend makes the point that I am trying to make more succinctly. If he bears with me, I will continue to develop it. Another section in Mr. Rowe's report substantiates his argument.
In paragraph 63, Mr. Rowe points out that because "PACE inference" is different from "PTA inference", there is a danger of confusion where several charges are brought against a defendant, and that could constitute unfairness, as defined by the European convention on human rights. Mr. Rowe also suggests, as no doubt my hon. Friend is aware, that in some circumstances the same can be said of sections 14 and 16A. To put it mildly, it is profoundly unsatisfactory that the Government have created what, at the very least, is a grey area, and may prove to be much worse. That and the fact that the powers of the new section 2A have not been used since they were enacted goes a considerable way towards justify the cynicism that some of us feel about the interaction of the PTA and the Human Rights Act 1998.
As for the order in the wider context of the Government's review of legislation against terrorism, I do not object in principle to the proposition that the PTA and the Emergency Provisions Act should be replaced with one piece of permanent legislation, provided some flexibility is retained to enable the Government to respond to exceptionally serious or unforeseen circumstances.
With regard to the consultation paper and the order, to be ultra-selective, first, on balance, I believe that the Government are probably right to think in terms of introducing a judicial element into the extension of detention—section 14 of the Act. I changed my thinking on that issue towards the end of the previous Parliament. However, I still maintain that the case for judicial involvement is not so overwhelming as some of its advocates maintain. There are dangers and there are difficulties, not least the risk of compromising the judiciary by widening its role from being only and strictly judicial, and involving it in the process of prosecution.
Secondly, I hope that the Government will take very serious note indeed of Mr. Rowe's emphasis on the key role of port and border controls in detecting and detecting terrorism. He especially stresses the importance of adequate manpower. He reports in paragraph 114 that
there is as much need as ever for the presence of port officers, from the point of view, of both terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, and terrorism in the international field.
Thirdly, with regard to the consultation paper and this order, there remain two areas where, without apology, I continue to quarrel with the Government. I shall not repeat the arguments in detail—they are well rehearsed—but merely refer to them. It remains my belief that the Government are making a monumental error in dispensing with the power to intern and the power to exclude. I note with interest, however, that the Government are retaining the power to exclude from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland; I approve of that.
In my judgment, the powers to intern and to exclude, when used on a basis of sound intelligence, can be an effective means of severing the chain of command and communication without which terrorists cannot commit acts of terror. I am convinced that both powers should be available for use, and I remain convinced that the Government's ability to deter and detect terrorism is weakened by abandoning them.
Notwithstanding my objections in those respects, and unlike Labour Members when they were in opposition, if there is a Division, I shall vote in support of the order.
To conclude, as far as the order goes, I support the Government. Mr. Rowe has concluded that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has been used properly in the past year and that, in respect of both terrorism related to the affairs of Northern Ireland and international terrorism, its powers are still needed. Continuing terrorist activity in Northern Ireland and on the mainland in relation to the affairs of Northern Ireland, and the escalating reality of international terrorism confirm that. I do not believe that the House has good reason to disagree with Mr. Rowe.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Here we are again—same old story. Rosemary Nelson happens to be the latest victim of the long, sad catalogue of violence that caused us to implement the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the first place. Responsibility for that attack seems to rest on the Red Hand Defenders. What does that name mean? What are they defending—the right to violence, the right to kill? Such events hold no promise of hope for those involved, and call for no half-hearted response from us, any more than the legislation lends itself to compromise. It is all or nothing.
If we vote against the continuance of the order tonight, we would not be voting against any one part of it, but throwing out the whole thing, leaving Northern Ireland and Britain less protected than experience has shown we need to be at present. Therefore it will not come as a surprise for me to reveal that the Liberal Democrats will support the continuance order tonight.
It is a case of balancing the rights of the public, and civil liberties, with the rights of people rightly or wrongly accused of heinous terrorist crimes. If those crimes are committed, some members of the public will lose their lives. However, as civil democrats, none of us in the Chamber can support the removal of some fairly fundamental rights from an individual for less than fundamental reasons.
The questions that we need to ask when deciding whether to support the order are whether it has saved lives, whether it will continue to save lives, and whether it helps the terrorists to perpetrate their crimes by offering some perverse justification on the grounds that their rights have been limited. The considerable evidence in the Rowe report and elsewhere suggests that the answers are respectively yes, yes and clearly no. There is no justification for the terrorists to perpetrate their crimes on the basis of the PTA.
The legislation is, in our view, a regrettable necessity, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said last year. That is the world in which we live, unfortunately.
We look forward to the Government's proposals to bring together all security legislation under one Act. That is rather overdue. Clearly, the potential for further well-planned and co-ordinated terrorist violence in Northern Ireland is a significant factor in our decision tonight whether to support the continuance of the PTA. In a few weeks, it will be an extremely significant factor in our consideration of the Emergency Provisions Act. There are other pieces of legislation justified by the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We will save our comments for the proposals, when they are announced.
I hope for three things above all—first, that all security measures are combined in a single piece of legislation. Secondly, I hope that when that legislation comes before


both Houses for renewal in future years, it can be amended, so that we are not faced with the all-or-nothing choice before us tonight. Thirdly, I hope that the legislation is not introduced on a wave of hysteria, following widespread revulsion aroused by a particular atrocity. We need to be sober when such serious legislation is introduced, and not act on impulse.
The Rowe report has called at least twice and possibly three times for more staff to be on duty at ports. Although we commend the valiant people who are in the front line against terrorism, we should never imagine that terrorists are not cunning enough to go round the back way. Ports are the back door that needs to be kept locked. I would welcome some comment from the Minister, as it seems to be a recurring failure. I am sure that he would agree that if reductions were motivated purely by Treasury cuts and financial considerations in the short term, those savings could prove to be false economies in the matter of terrorism.
We are concerned about apparent breaches, which have already been mentioned, of the European convention on human rights, to which the Government have laudably committed themselves. Mr. Rowe's annual report this year raises the question whether the new powers incorporated into the PTA as a result of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 breach the European convention on human rights. Whereas the report concludes that other powers are not considered to breach that convention, Mr. Rowe concludes that the new provisions in relation to a police officer's evidence and drawing inferences from silence may lead to breaches—but, admittedly, only in certain circumstances.
On page 11 of the report, Mr. Rowe states:
In my view there is a potential breach of Article 6.3.d, which establishes the right to examine witnesses against him"—
that is, the defendant.Taken at face value, those words appear to prohibit hearsay evidence. The witness giving adverse evidence should be in court and available for cross-examination.
I was slightly concerned when the Home Secretary said that he was comfortable with a different interpretation from that provided by Mr. Rowe. I am not convinced that he has satisfied those of us who are unhappy about the decisions that have been made in the past on the matter.
For the future, the implication is that a key concern will be to ensure that the process of replacing the existing temporary legislation with permanent legislation does not result in unnecessary powers remaining in operation, and that the proper means for scrutiny of the operation of the powers are in place.
In fairness, we welcome the Government's stated aim for complete normalisation, whereby exceptional powers that do not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom will not apply to Northern Ireland. That will, of course, depend on developments within the Province, but maintaining a consensus among UK parties must be a key element of that.
In that context, I again highlight our continuing concerns about provisions on international elements which were introduced, in a rather Machiavellian fashion, last September when the House was suddenly recalled. We were opposed then, as we are now, to some of the additional powers, and still maintain that the powers that have been introduced to try to control international terrorism go beyond in their reach what may be regarded as liberal.
I am concerned once again that individuals with whom I worked in the past when the Soviet Union was still an entity could have been arrested in the United Kingdom and found guilty of a crime simply for supporting the justifiable aspirations of the emerging democracies, such as Estonia, the Baltic states and others, and trying to stand up to the tyranny under which they lived. It is easy to be tough, but it is important to be fair.

Mr. John Bercow: I am genuinely perplexed by the example that the hon. Gentleman has just given. I simply ask him to elaborate on it and to try to justify it to those of us who are deeply sceptical about the validity of the analogy.

Mr. Öpik: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the extensive 16-hour debate last September on the matter. I do not want to digress too far from the issue at hand. I merely add one additional sentence. I am saying nothing new. We have had this debate in the past when we highlighted the importance of balancing the requirement to be seen to be just and fair with the reasonable need, which we all support, to tackle international terrorism. I am happy to discuss the matter further, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in these matters, we have to be scrupulously clear and careful not to undermine the very values that we are attempting to uphold with legislation. In that sense, replacing terrorism with injustice is not an equitable trade. I hope that the Home Secretary will take that seriously when we seek to replace the temporary provisions with more permanent legislation in the future.
Notwithstanding that point, we recognise that this Act is necessary and will continue to be so in the current environment. The best prevention of terrorism act is the act of laying down one's arms for good. It is what we all hope for and what the agreement in Northern Ireland expects. I hope that in 12 months' time, we shall look back at this debate as the last time that the House felt the need to uphold legislation that, when all is said and done, applies to exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland, which there is some hope that we can now resolve for good.
The Act is no more perfect than human nature and simply serves to remind us that, in the resolution of conflict, our species has some way to go.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: When the Home Secretary spoke tonight he alluded to the death of Rosemary Nelson and very properly condemned it without reservation. I share that sentiment and believe that all decent people in Northern Ireland do likewise. Whoever Rosemary Nelson was, or whoever any other victim of violence is in Northern Ireland, there is no justification within a western democracy for anyone taking a life to promote a political aspiration.
The society that we live in should not be barbarous, but one in which there is respect for other traditions and for individuals—even those with whom we might strongly disagree. Although I would have disagreed with many of the things with which Rosemary Nelson was associated, she was doing her job as a solicitor and whatever associations she would have had in connection with that job cannot be used, as some people whisper behind their hands, in relation to the sort of life that she led.
On the other hand, the media and those who do not have the courage to address the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland will attempt to lionise Rosemary Nelson, but all that I do on behalf of my party is express my sincere sympathy with her husband, her children and her family. I do so as I would for any other victim of violence in Northern Ireland, whether it be a single victim or a member of a group—one of about 30, depending on whether we count the unborn children who died in the Omagh bomb.
I hope that this is the last time that the PTA is continued. It is intended that new legislation, incorporating the PTA and the emergency provisions Act, will replace it. If that is so, it is appropriate to look forward to the nature of the society for which the new Act will cater. I believe that the one thing that is missing from our approach to emergency legislation is the education of society about the nature of terrorism. So many myths surround the terrorism that we have in the United Kingdom at present that it is difficult to understand what we are trying to achieve. So much is talked about the rights of the individual—by the very people who would deny individuals the right to life—that the rights of society as a whole are often neglected within that debate.
The Home Secretary and this House can legislate as much as they like to prevent terrorism, but, after reading some of today's press and participating in some of the television and radio programmes examining the death of Rosemary Nelson, I believe that terrorism is treated almost as an entertainment. I worry about what we will achieve; old legislation or new legislation, it will not matter.
We have to understand that international terrorism is not a three-stage rocket from North Korea, which the Americans are taking steps to prevent. They are talking about putting in place anti-missile defences. For the next 20 or 30 years, terrorism will mean the nuclear device that is loaded on to a ship and sailed up the Thames and into London docks, or into Boston, or the nuclear device that is placed in the back of a container lorry and driven from eastern Europe to this country, or somewhere else. Unless people appreciate that concept of what terrorism brings to society, all the legislation that we can produce here, and all the debate that can take place, will be for nothing.
I saw a Labour Member shake his head when I spoke of terrorism being a subject of entertainment in the press and on television. We need only examine the propaganda that has been peddled by terrorists in my community—loyalist and republican terrorists—and assess the validity of their terrorism. We need only look at the way in which the exponents and advocates of that terrorism have been welcomed by some Members of this House, and have been supported and buoyed up by them over the past 30 years. They are being buoyed up by Congressmen like Chris Smith and Ben Gillman, chairman of the House international relations committee in Congress.
Ben Gillman is now suggesting that he should conduct an inquiry into the RUC—an inquiry that will coincide with the winding up of the Patten commission, which is looking at the future of the RUC. I have not heard him suggest that he might examine the activities of the Israelis on the Gaza strip. I have heard no Member who is present consider the motivation of Congressman Peter King—a

member of the committee—who supported and endorsed the mortaring of Newry police station in which policemen and policewomen, Protestant and Catholic, died. He endorsed that, yet we are prepared to be, as we would say, bird-mouthed about the activities of people who act as advocates for terrorists. It is time that the House, our Government and those with responsibility educated the public about the real threat, and the nature of that threat.
The RUC, which has had to withstand the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland for 30 years, is now the organisation against which the most venom and negative propaganda is being launched. There have been scandalous arguments in our weekend papers. The Sunday Times, for instance, carried an allegation by a convicted murderer that one man, dead at the hands of terrorists—Superintendent Harry Breen—had been involved in the promotion of terrorism. I mention that case in particular because I knew Harry Breen. I also knew his brother, the late Winston Breen, who was headmaster of Banbridge academy. I know his family, who live in my constituency, and a better, more Christian family—I am talking about the way in which they lead their lives, not the way in which they preach to others—I have yet to meet. Yet some scoundrel who murdered Catholics can come out, sell, I presume, his story to a paper and demean the memory of someone such as Superintendent Harry Breen. It is a disgrace. It is something that Government after Government have ignored when they have spoken about terrorism and the scourge of terrorism: the rights of those who have the responsibility to stand between the law-abiding community and the terrorist.
The RUC is being accused of collusion. A total of 12,000 men and women serve in the RUC. I am not naive enough to believe that every one of them is the most upright citizen one could meet. Many of them are. Inquiry after inquiry has vindicated them with regard to collusion, yet where are we today? We still hear the allegations and who do they come from?—those who, within minutes of poor Rosemary Nelson's death, were able to come out on to the streets holding their anti-RUC posters; people who are organised to demean the RUC.
It appears to us quite often that no one is prepared to stand up and to defend those in the RUC. If we look at the record, we find that they brought 48 per cent. of loyalist terrorists who committed murder through the courts in my constituency, but were able to bring only 8 per cent. of republican terrorists through the courts for a similar offence. That had to do with the co-operation that those in the RUC received and with the way in which they exercised their responsibilities.
Who colluded in the deaths of 2,200 people who were killed by the IRA? Who colluded in the attacks on my colleagues and me over the years? No one needed to collude in a society where we live together and where the IRA can move freely and attack us. In the same way, there is no—

Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: No. I am over my time. I am not giving way.
No one needs to collude with loyalist terrorists who have exactly the same opportunity as republican terrorists to wreak havoc in our society, so it is time that each and every one of us fulfilled our responsibility to educate our


society as to what terrorism can do to our society if we let it go unchecked. That is where we have to look when we introduce not only the legislation that is to be renewed tonight, but new legislation that will incorporate both the PTA and EPA.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not intend to trouble the House at any length, but I would not be taking my opportunity if I did not say a few words about the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was introduced last September.
I support the broad thrust of the PTA and the order. It is clear that society needs to be protected from the activities of terrorists. It is equally clear that, in seeking to provide such protection, we sometimes have to introduce, and keep going, orders and legislation which may at times offend against our view of what we would like in an ideal society.
I am bound to say, however, that, last September, when the House considered the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act, I had the very gravest reservations. I was not able to develop my arguments then—perhaps fortunately for my own conscience—because, as I had to organise my father's funeral the following day, I had been released by the Whips. I left the House only after hearing what the Home Secretary had to say about that Bill, and there was enough in what he said to cause me considerable disquiet. Once the House had re-assembled after the recess, I spoke to many colleagues, including plenty of Labour Members, and found that my disquiet was shared.
I simply want to say this about the 1998 Act. It has been suggested that the two provisions with which we are particularly concerned today—a police officer's statement of opinion being sufficient as evidence of membership of a proscribed organisation, and the inferences to be drawn from an accused's failure to mention any material fact that he could reasonably have been expected to mention at the time of his arrest in connection with that—do not offend against the Human Rights Act 1998. I do not know the answer to that. All I can say is that it is a matter which is, fortunately, untested. I also have some rather serious doubts about whether it would pass that test.
Even if that were not the case, it is difficult to imagine—it always seemed to me to be the most extraordinary feature of the two provisions—that anyone could ever be convicted in a case that is brought based on them. If such a prosecution were to be brought, I should be very surprised if a judge, exercising the discretion open to him in the interests of justice, were to allow a conviction to be entered on that basis.
If that is the case—I should say that that is the view of the matter that I took when I considered it last September—I regret very much that, in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity at Omagh, we should have passed legislation which I believe to be hasty and ill-considered.
Let me simply tell the Home Secretary that I am mindful of the fact that, at this stage, it may not be possible to do anything about it. I am equally mindful of the fact that we all have real hopes that, in 12 months' time, we may be able to bury everything connected with this order and with the whole Prevention of Terrorism Act, because the situation will have improved so much. That is certainly my hope. I share the Government's hopes on the issue.
In 12 months' time, if that happy state of affairs has not yet arrived, and if, as I believe will be the case, the two provisions have never been used in the interim—I have very serious doubts that anyone would risk using them—I hope that the Home Secretary will think long and hard about whether they should be renewed. They offend very deeply against fundamental principles of law, fairness and the way in which we deal with evidence in our courts.
I should certainly have had great difficulty—if, as I said, it had not been for my perhaps fortunate absence—in supporting the legislation when it was first passed. I do not believe that it is well directed to serve its purpose, and hope that it will be kept under close review. In 12 months' time, if the provisions of the 1998 Act are found to be unnecessary, but it is necessary to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I hope very much that we shall consider dropping those provisions from it.

Mr. Straw: With the permission of the House, I should like briefly to respond to the points that have been made in the debate.
I tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that, although I do not share his rather apocalyptic view of the provisions that we passed in part I of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, I have always accepted that they were exceptional measures which I happen to think are proportionate. We shall, of course, keep the matters under review regardless of whether the powers are used in the intervening 12 months. Powers such as those should not be on the statute book and available for use unless they are clearly necessary.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) expressed his support for renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, as he and other Conservative Members have done consistently since 1974. I am grateful to him for his support. He also referred generously to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is worth remembering that since the troubles began in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s, more than 300 RUC officers have been killed, and many hundreds more have been injured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the investigation into the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I am aware that I have used the same adverb to my hon. Friend several times, but I am afraid that I am going to have to use it again. The inquiries have taken a great deal longer than anticipated, but I understand from the Metropolitan police that they will be concluded shortly. I am afraid that I cannot give an exact time scale.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) asked about staffing levels at ports. Paragraph 114 of Mr. Rowe's report says:
staffing levels of port officers should not be allowed to fall.
However, Mr. Rowe goes on to say:
I do not in any fashion assert that staffing levels are too low at any particular place".
There has not been a suggestion that staffing levels have been reduced. I understand that the number of port police officers has not reduced in recent years.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that to do justice to the memory of Rosemary Nelson, we should express our sincere sympathy for her husband, children and family—and her friends, I might add. I agree with him on that.
I hope that the renewal order will be passed without a Division. It is widely accepted that the renewal is justified in the circumstances and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That—

(1) the matter of the draft Report of the Department of Economic Development's Economic Strategy Review, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee; and
(2) at its sitting on Thursday 25th March—

(i) the Committee shall consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
(ii) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings thereon at Five o'clock; and
(iii) at the conclusion of those proceedings a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5).—[Mr. Jamieson.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

LIBRARIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (WALES)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1999 (No. 2): Special Grant for Asylum Seekers (HC 250), which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved. —[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 24.

Division No. 108]
[11.48 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Benton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Berry, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Best, Harold


Atkins, Charlotte
Blackman, Liz


Banks, Tony
Blears, Ms Hazel


Barnes, Harry
Blizzard, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Boateng, Paul


Battle, John
Borrow, David


Bayley, Hugh
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Begg, Miss Anne
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)





Browne, Desmond
Hain, Peter


Buck, Ms Karen
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Burden, Richard
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Burgon, Colin
Hanson, David


Butler, Mrs Christine
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Caborn, Richard
Healey, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Caplin, Ivor
Heppell, John


Caton, Martin
Hesford, Stephen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chaytor, David
Hill, Keith


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clwyd, Ann
Hutton, John


Coaker, Vernon
Iddon, Dr Brian


Coffey, Ms Ann
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jamieson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jenkins, Brian


Corston, Ms Jean
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cranston, Ross



Crausby, David
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)



Cummings, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davidson, Ian
Kemp, Fraser


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Khabra, Piara S


Dawson, Hilton
Kidney, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Denham, John
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dismore, Andrew
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dobbin, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob


Donohoe, Brian H
Leslie, Christopher


Doran, Frank
Levitt, Tom


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Drew, David
Linton, Martin


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Livingstone, Ken


Edwards, Huw
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lock, David


Etherington, Bill
Love, Andrew


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAllion, John


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flint, Caroline
McDonagh, Siobhain


Follett, Barbara
McDonnell, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McFall, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McIsaac, Shona


Fyfe, Maria
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Galloway, George
McNulty, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mallaber, Judy


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grogan, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert






Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Maxton, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Soley, Clive


Moran, Ms Margaret
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mountford, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Norris, Dan
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stott, Roger


O'Hara, Eddie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Olner, Bill
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Stringer, Graham


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian



Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pike, Peter L
Temple-Morris, Peter


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pond, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Touhig, Don


Prosser, Gwyn
Trickett, Jon


Purchase, Ken
Truswell, Paul


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Raynsford, Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Ms Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N


Roy, Frank
Watts, David


Ruane, Chris
White, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wicks, Malcolm


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Salter, Martin
Winnick, David


Savidge, Malcolm
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sawford, Phil
Woolas, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Sheerman, Barry



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Smith, Angela (Basildon)





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Randall, John


Bercow, John
Ross, Wlliam (E Lond'y)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



St Aubyn, Nick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Syms, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Jenkin, Bernard
Thompson, William


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard



Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Moore, Michael
Mr. Andrew Lansley and Mr. Dominic Grieve.


Öpik, Lembit

Question accordingly agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the Special Grant Report for Scotland (No. 1 1999): Special Grant for Asylum Seeker Assistance (HC 228), which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 24.

Division No. 109]
[12.1 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dalyell, Tam


Atkins, Charlotte
Davidson, Ian


Banks, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Barron, Kevin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dismore, Andrew


Begg, Miss Anne
Dobbin, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Donohoe, Brian H


Benton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Berry, Roger
Dowd, Jim


Best, Harold
Drew, David


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Edwards, Huw


Blizzard, Bob
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Boateng, Paul
Etherington, Bill


Borrow, David
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flint, Caroline


Browne, Desmond
Follett, Barbara


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fyfe, Maria


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Galloway, George


Caborn, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godsiff, Roger


Caton, Martin
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grogan, John



Hain, Peter


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cranston, Ross
Hoon, Geoffrey


Crausby, David
Hope, Phil


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr Kim






Hoyle, Lindsay
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Perham, Ms Linda


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pike, Peter L


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Plaskitt, James


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pond, Chris


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Quinn, Lawrie



Rammell, Bill


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Raynsford, Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rooker, Jeff


Kemp, Fraser
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S
Roy, Frank


Kidney, David
Ruane, Chris


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ruddock, Joan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ryan, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Salter, Martin


Laxton, Bob
Savidge, Malcolm


Leslie, Christopher
Sawford, Phil


Levitt, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheerman, Barry


Linton, Martin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lock, David
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McAllion, John



McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Soley, Clive


McDonnell, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Squire, Ms Rachel


McIsaac, Shona
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Steinberg, Gerry


McNulty, Tony
Stevenson, George


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McWalter, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mallaber, Judy
Stott, Roger


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stringer, Graham


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Meale, Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merron, Gillian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Timms, Stephen


Moran, Ms Margaret
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Todd, Mark


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Touhig, Don


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Trickett, Jon


Mountford, Kali
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Norris, Dan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Hara, Eddie
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Olner, Bill
Vaz, Keith


O'Neill, Martin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Organ, Mrs Diana
Walley, Ms Joan





Wareing, Robert N
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Watts, David
Woolas, Phil


White, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.


Winnick, David





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Öpik, Lembit


Bercow, John
Randall, John


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Rendel, David



Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



St Aubyn, Nick


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Syms, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Jenkin, Bernard
Wallace, James


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Andrew Lansley and Mr. Dominic Grieve.


Moore, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 38): Special Grant for Asylum Seekers (HC 230), which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 9.

Division No. 110]
[12.12 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Burden, Richard



Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen



Caborn, Richard


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Barnes, Harry
Caplin, Ivor


Barron, Kevin
Caton, Martin


Battle, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)



Chaytor, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)



Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blackman, Liz
Clelland, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clwyd, Ann


Blizzard, Bob
Coaker, Vernon



Coffey, Ms Ann


Boateng, Paul
Coleman, Iain


Borrow, David
Connarty, Michael


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)



Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corston, Ms Jean


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cranston, Ross



Crausby, David


Browne, Desmond
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Buck, Ms Karen
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)






Cummings, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jamieson, David


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jenkins, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dismore, Andrew
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Kidney, David


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Drew, David
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)



Kingham, Ms Tess


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Leslie, Christopher


Etherington, Bill
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Linton, Martin


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Livingstone, Ken


Follett, Barbara
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)



Lock, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAllion, John


Galloway, George
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McCabe, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonnell, John


Godsiff, Roger
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary



McNulty,Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWalter, Tony


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hain, Peter
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hanson, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Healey, John
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maxton, John



Meale, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moore, Michael


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hope, Phil
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mountford, Kali


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Organ, Mrs Diana





Osborne, Ms Sandra
Squire, Ms Rachel


Palmer, Dr Nick
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pearson, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Perham, Ms Linda
Stevenson, George


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Plaskitt, James
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pollard, Kerry
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pond, Chris
Stott, Roger


Pope, Greg
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stringer, Graham


Prosser, Gwyn
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rammell, Bill



Rapson, Syd
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Raynsford, Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rendel, David
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Timms, Stephen


Rooker, Jeff
Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark


Rooney, Terry
Touhig, Don


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Trickett, Jon


Roy, Frank
Truswell, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Salter, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Savidge, Malcolm
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sawford, Phil
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Watts, David


Skinner, Dennis
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Winnick, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Ayes:


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.


Spellar, John





NOES


Bercow, John
St Aubyn, Nick



Swayne, Desmond


Gray, James
Syms, Robert


Hunter, Andrew



Jenkin, Bernard
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Andrew Lansley and Mr. Dominic Grieve.


Maclean, Rt Hon David

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGING

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10778/98, the Commission White Paper: Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging framework in the EU; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on the document.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 12.

Division No. 111]
[12.22 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Doran, Frank


Allen, Graham
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Drew, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Atkins, Charlotte
Edwards, Huw


Barnes, Harry
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Barron, Kevin
Etherington, Bill


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Begg, Miss Anne
Follett, Barbara


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Berry, Roqer



Best, Harold
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blackman, Liz
Fyfe, Maria


Blears, Ms Hazel
Galloway, George


Blizzard, Bob
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Boateng, Paul
Gerrard, Neil


Borrow, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Goggins, Paul


Browne, Desmond
Golding, Mrs Llin


Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Grogan, John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard



Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hanson, David



Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Caplin, Ivor
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Healey, John


Chaytor, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clapham, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heppell, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hesford, Stephen



Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoon Geoffret


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hope, Phil


Clelland, David



Clwyd, Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coaker, Vernon
Howells, Dr Kim


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cranston, Ross
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Crausby, David
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jamieson, David


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dismore, Andrew
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)





Kidney, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooker, Jeff


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rooney, Terry


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roy, Frank


Laxton, Bob
Ruane, Chris


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Joan


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Linton, Martin
Ryan, Ms Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Salter, Martin


Livsey, Richard
Savidge, Malcolm


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sawford, Phil


Lock, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Love, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McDonnell, John



McFall, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


Mactaggart, Fiona
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWalter, Tony
Spellar, John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mallaber, Judy
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stevenson, George


Marshall, David (Shettieston)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stoate, Dr Howard


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Maxton, John
Stringer, Graham


Meale, Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Merron, Gillian
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan



Moore, Michael
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen


Mountford, Kali
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Todd, Mark


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Touhig, Don


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Trickett, Jon


Norris, Dan
Truswell, Paul


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Öpik, Lembit
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Vaz, Keith


Palmer, Dr Nick
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pearson, Ian
Wallace, James


Perham, Ms Linda
Walley, Ms Joan


Pike, Peter L
Wareing, Robert N


Plaskitt, James
Watts, David


Pollard, Kerry
White, Brian


Pond, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pope, Greg
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prosser, Gwyn
Winnick, David


Purchase, Ken
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Quinn, Lawrie
Woolas, Phil


Rammell, Bill
Worthington, Tony


Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts


Rendel, David







NOES


Beggs, Roy
St Aubyn, Nick


Bercow, John
Swayne, Desmond


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Syms, Robert


Gray, James
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Hunter, Andrew



Jenkin, Bernard
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Andrew Lansley and Mr. Dominic Grieve.


Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

CRIMINAL LEGAL AID (FIXED PAYMENTS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1999

Ordered,
That the Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed Payments)(Scotland) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Clelland.]

National Stadium (Northern Ireland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mr. John Grogan: St. Patrick's day has begun and I am delighted to begin this national day of celebration by advocating the creation of a new national stadium in Northern Ireland to host great sporting occasions, pop concerts and other large events.
I start by outlining the role of sport in Northern Ireland society. During the past 30 years, sport has provided, throughout the troubles, moments of relief and joy for all, such as in the triumphs of Mary Peters in the Olympics or Barry McGuigan in the boxing ring. Northern Ireland still apparently claims to hold the home nations football championship, because it won the last championship to be held before England stopped playing. England had previously claimed that it would no longer play in the championships because it always won.
At the best of times, playing and watching sport have provided a common currency between the different communities—at times, perhaps the only common currency. The power of sport to transcend boundaries was demonstrated to the world recently in the rugby European cup triumph of Ulster against French opposition at Lansdowne Road, Dublin. The capacity crowd attracted the widest possible range of Unionist and nationalist politicians. More important perhaps, 60,000 ordinary people from Northern Ireland wanted tickets when only 28,000 tickets were available. As the Deputy First Minister commented,
The Ulster players have done the impossible. They have created the situation where the entire island of Ireland, North and South, is behind them. People want to be part of it, people want to be there and what they do not want in any shape or form are these labels of religion or anything else being put on the game.
Sport has also managed to help the economy going through difficult years, employing 12,500 people. According to opinion poll evidence, 80 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland believe that sport can help to build positive links between people of different communities.
At a grassroots level, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland has pioneered programmes such as Youth Sport, which has been widely copied elsewhere. Youth Sport seeks to integrate the school, the club and the community, keeping school sports facilities open until late at night. It aims to get more people to play the sport of their choice, regardless whether that is the traditional choice of their school or community. The Sports Council recently launched a public awareness campaign under the slogan "Participate, celebrate and tolerate".
It is worth noting that Northern Irish sport at a local level has benefited from the fact that, unlike England, Scotland or Wales, sport is a statutory responsibility of local councils, and has been since Stormont days.
Sport led the way on creating all-Ireland bodies long before the Good Friday agreement. There are 35 sports organised on an all-Ireland basis, of which perhaps rugby is the most notable. In a move underscoring the case for all-Ireland sports bodies, the Northern Ireland Athletics Federation recently ruled that its athletes would compete for Northern Ireland in the Commonwealth games, and, if they chose, for the Irish Republic in the Olympics.
The Irish and Northern Ireland Sports Councils co-operate closely. Recently at the Omagh leisure centre a Sport for All programme which covers the border counties of Ireland between the north and the south was introduced.
At the worst of times, sport has emphasised the most bitter sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland. Nelson Mandela observed that normal sport is impossible in an abnormal society. Even today, members of the security forces are not allowed to participate in Gaelic sports. A change in rules is as long overdue in that case as it was in regard to the admission of women to the pavilion at Lord's cricket ground.
The beautiful game, the world game of soccer has faced many problems in Northern Ireland, perhaps because, uniquely, it has been loved in equal measure by both communities. Soccer has perhaps never fully recovered from the bitterness left by the sectarian violence that occurred after the Boxing day derby match in 1948 between Linfield and Belfast Celtic in front of 33,000 spectators at Windsor Park. A post-match riot led to a horrific mob attack on 20-year-old Belfast Celtic centre forward Jimmy Jones, who had accidentally earlier fouled an opposing player. Jones survived, but the club folded in the aftermath of the incident.
Jimmy Jones was saved by a goalkeeper from Ballymena, Sean McCann, who single-handedly fought off scores of attackers. Jones recently told The Daily Telegraph:
The irony of it all is that I am a Protestant, the people who were trying to kill me were Protestant and Sean is a Roman Catholic.
Almost exactly 50 years later, there are renewed signs of hope in soccer. Glentoran and Linfield played a match around Christmas time 1998 watched by a crowd of 13,000, compared with about 4,000 in recent years at the same fixture. That is the sort of difference that the peace process can make to life for ordinary people, who can simply feel more confident about doing the normal things in life, such as going to watch a soccer match over Christmas.
In 11 days—or probably 10 days now—Northern Ireland play Germany in a European championship qualifying match at Windsor Park. The capacity, I understand, is only about 13,000. The chairman of the Sports Council, Mr. Allen, recently commented:
If we had a stadium in a neutral venue and Northern Ireland were playing Germany, then the minimum I expect would be around about 30,000. If we had a stadium in a neutral venue, it would encourage people to go into a peaceful and enjoyable atmosphere to support a team whether they win or lose, and that would be very significant in peace and reconciliation terms.
That is one argument for creating a new national stadium. It would symbolise a new beginning for Northern Ireland by creating a venue at which everyone would feel comfortable.
Northern Ireland lacks top-quality international facilities to complement its network of leisure centres at grassroots level. The rugby ground Ravenhill seats only 2,500 people, with space for another 5,000 or 6,000 people standing. The state of the soccer grounds, which were not covered by the legislation following the Taylor report, is a disgrace, which will be highlighted by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) in an Adjournment debate tomorrow.
Northern Ireland is in danger of being left out. London will soon boast the revamped Wembley and Twickenham; Cardiff Arms Park will host the rugby union cup final; Scotland has Hampden, Ibrox, Murrayfield and Meadowbank; Manchester will soon have an array of indoor and outdoor facilities to host the Commonwealth games; and in Dublin the new Croke Park will soon sport an estimated capacity of 81,000, ready to host the all-Ireland senior football and hurling finals of 2001.
With regard to the national lottery and the pools, more money is spent per head of the population in Northern Ireland than anywhere else; yet the Football Trust spends almost nothing in Northern Ireland. Money from the national lottery for sport is distributed on a population basis. In Northern Ireland, that figure is 2.8 per cent. of the national total. That will never provide enough capital to help fund a large one-off expenditure, such as a national stadium, which would cost at least £50 million.
The vision of a national stadium is the subject of discussion between Whitehall, the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, the Sports Council, and some of the potential users. A high political priority needs to be given to assembling a financial package, perhaps including money from the lottery, the Government, the European Union and the private sector. If ever there was a special case, it is Northern Ireland.
Football, rugby and athletics are perhaps the most obvious potential users of a national stadium. The possibility of including Gaelic sports must be further examined. The dimensions of the pitch would need to be enhanced and the cost would inevitably increase. But the prize of regularly hosting an all-Ireland Gaelic football final or a hurling semi-final would be well worth aiming for if the sporting politics could be overcome.
The potential for other events is boundless. Last year, 40,000 young people turned up for an outdoor concert in the Botanic gardens. The right event can generate tourists from far and wide. On the same weekend as the Germany versus Northern Ireland football match, the world cross-country championships will bring athletes and enthusiasts from many countries to Belfast. Cheap, frequent and quick transportation is opening up the island of Ireland, and already the two-hour catchment area includes parts of England and Scotland and most of the population of Ireland.
There are various possible sites for the new stadium. One is in Belfast, adjacent to the Waterfront hall and the new arena, within a few hundred yards of the railway station, with a boat stopping outside and City airport minutes away. I understand that there are other possible venues as well.
In opinion polls, 94 per cent. of people rarely agree on anything, but that is the level of support in the telephone poll on a national stadium conducted by the Belfast Telegraph earlier this year. That poll generated far more calls than any other that the newspaper has previously undertaken.
I referred earlier to Jimmy Jones, the Belfast Celtic striker. Now a grandfather of four, he concluded his recent interview in The Daily Telegraph by referring to the site of the old club's stadium. He said:
It's nice when people remember me, but I can never stand on this spot and not see Celtic Park in my mind's eye. It's not a shopping mall to me, it's still paradise, as everyone called it. Looking back, I couldn't have told you whether most of my team-mates were Catholic or Protestant. We didn't give a damn about that sort of thing.


Jimmy Jones's grandchildren, and all the children of Northern Ireland, need a new stadium, a stadium where they will all feel safe, a stadium that will inspire them and make them proud to come from where they come from, a stadium that will give them a stage in their own backyard where they can witness the excellence of the world's greatest entertainers and sportsmen and sportswomen, a stadium that will give them memories to last a lifetime.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I wish him and every other hon. Member present a happy St. Patrick's day. I did not expect to be replying to this debate on St. Patrick's day, but it is appropriate that I am. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will be following this up with another Adjournment debate within 12 hours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby mentioned the sporting heroes, Mary Peters and Barry McGuigan. In my short time at the Northern Ireland Office, I have been privileged to meet both of them. He also mentioned the religious divide and the sectarianism. I remember when Bertie Peacock played left half at Glasgow Celtic, and I think that he still has an executive role at Coleraine. He was a tremendous player, gracing the field at Parkhead in Glasgow. He was a Protestant, playing for a club which was recognised as Catholic, but he crossed that divide and he was a fine servant. Before him, I remember Charlie Tully, who came from Belfast and was a real character, and we all know the inestimable George Best who danced his way around the world and gave people many hours of enjoyment. Northern Ireland sportsmen have played their part in the past and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby is right to ensure that a national stadium for Northern Ireland is very much on the agenda.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Although others have been mentioned, does the Minister agree that we should not overlook the fact that Dave "Boy" McAuley, who comes from East Antrim, was five times world boxing champion?

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman has graced the debate with his presence and his contribution and I thank him very much for that. He will obviously be interested in this debate in respect of Larne football club and Ballyclare, which are in his constituency.
The Government are fully aware of the level of interest in the provision of a national sports stadium in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, that has been an aspiration of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland for some time, in order to bring the Province into line with England, Scotland and Wales, and I have had a number of discussions with its chairman, Don Allen, on that very matter. My hon. Friend is right to say that the people of Northern Ireland are aware of the major developments for upgrading the national stadiums in the other home countries and of proposals for a national stadium in the Republic of Ireland.
The success of the Ulster rugby team in winning the European Cup has also renewed interest in the matter. I was privileged to be at the match at Ravenhill, and I

think that 20,000 spectators were present. As my hon. Friend said, the official attendance was supposed to be 2,000, but special seats were installed for that fantastic day. I followed that visit up with a trip to Lansdowne Road in Dublin. The cross-community support for the Ulster rugby team was fantastic.
I made my way into the ground with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, from Dublin airport. There was not a pub that we passed that did not have people standing outside in the street, waving and enjoying themselves. The only sad thing for me was that, after the victory, we had to leave straight away and could not share in the celebration. It was a day of festivity and of celebration for everyone and that pride in the Ulster rugby team lives on in Northern Ireland.
Many of those who are interested in sport felt that it would have been appropriate for Ulster to have been able to play the semi-final fixture in a national stadium, which would have offered enhanced spectator opportunities. The facilities at Ravenhill show us how far we have to go in that regard and the demand is present for the Northern Ireland community to have facilities at least on a par with those in the other regions of these islands.
Northern Ireland should have the best possible facilities. A national stadium would provide a whole range of benefits and new opportunities, as well as helping to secure a more positive image of the Province. That goes hand in hand with the Belfast agreement and with the political developments which we hope will take place shortly.
Since I have assumed responsibilities for sport under my responsibility for the Department of Education, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland has taken every opportunity to point out that Northern Ireland has few facilities which could be classified as suitable for national competition or national training. There are no Wembleys or Hampden Parks and no Celtic Parks, Ibrox Parks or Old Traffords in Northern Ireland. Although I recognise that, I have also to recognise that a national stadium would require significant investment of funds and that assurances about the long-term need for and sustainability of such a development would therefore be essential.
I do not want to give the impression that Northern Ireland is devoid of facilities and that progress is not being made. I want to affirm that the Government attach great importance to the improvement of the quality of life for all the people of Northern Ireland. That is clearly shown by the fact that the Government have committed significant investment in the Millennium Odyssey project, which includes an indoor, multi-functional sports arena with seating for 10,000.
I am also pleased that Northern Ireland is being locked into the development of sport at a United Kingdom level, through the development of a network centre as part of the UK Sports Institute. I attended a sports cabinet meeting last week with a number of my ministerial colleagues, at which the issues of sporting facilities in Northern Ireland and the establishment of a national stadium arose.
The Sports Council is managing the setting up of a network centre, and I hope to be able to announce progress in the near future. Following the establishment of the UK Sports Institute, sports people in Northern Ireland will have the same opportunity to reach the optimum level of performance as their counterparts


throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that significant progress is being made.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) spoke of the great interest in having a national stadium in Northern Ireland—something that I have wanted for many years. Incidentally, in our last game with Germany—in Nuremberg—we drew with them, and we shall beat them on Saturday week. What about private investment? It is all very well to talk about the need for a stadium, and the interest in having a stadium—everyone agrees on that—but is any encouragement being given to private investment, in an effort to make that a reality?

Mr. McFall: If the right hon. Member will bear with me, I shall explain about the working party that has been set up by the Department of Education.
Of course a new national sports stadium, on top of the other developments, would be a huge bonus for Northern Ireland but it would be foolish to embark on such a significant and costly project without proper research into need, resource implications and long-term sustainability. We need to be convinced about all those issues. If we fail to address them, there is a danger that we could end up with an arrangement that would be out of step with real need, and would result in a serious misuse of resources.
I have been looking carefully at what can be done. I am pleased to announce a process that will allow the key issues to be addressed and, hopefully, map out a plan for progress. I have arranged for a working group to be set up, led by the Sports Council, to examine thoroughly all aspects of the establishment of a national stadium, including the private and public finance aspects.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on raising this issue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred to private finance. The Minister may know of the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society's proposal to move from its present site at Balmoral to a new green-field site at Blaris, where it hopes to create facilities for show grounds and so on. It has been suggested that an integrated facility could be developed at Blaris that might include a national stadium, and that private finance might be available for such a facility. I hope that proposal will be included in the working party's deliberations.

Mr. McFall: It is important for the working party to consider such matters, and I find the integrated element

referred to by the hon. Gentleman very attractive. I should be happy if the working party engaged in such discussions.
The working party will explore the need for, and feasibility of, a national stadium. Specifically, its job will be to consult relevant sporting interests to determine their willingness to participate in the promotion and operation of such a stadium. That is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's question. It will also hope to identify potential promoters, owners and operators. It will be expected to examine the capital and recurrent funding implications, and associated locational issues; to examine the potential relationships and links with relevant public and private-sector organisations; to construct an outline business case; and to determine what further steps should be taken.
The working group has an important contribution to make in taking forward the concept of a national stadium. It is an important issue in the development of sport in Northern Ireland. Such a stadium has been missing. It is certainly an issue that I take seriously.
I do not want to break into the Adjournment debate that will take place later in the day, but I have had a meeting with the Football Trust on its contribution; I think that it took place on 21 January. It was a positive meeting. The trust told me that it was keen to become involved in a programme for Northern Ireland, so such a group could give us advice on the way forward and be one of the organisations that help to pan out the future.
The working party's report and its preliminary findings should be available by the end of June. I do not anticipate being in post to receive that report, but I am sure that my successor will do so. That will be an important element of the Assembly's agenda. If the Assembly tackled the matter at an early stage and ensured that we had a national stadium for Northern Ireland, it would instil pride in the entire community. That was in evidence after the Ulster rugby team's European win. If the stadium matched the quality of the participants, there would be a good future for Northern Ireland.
I have been delighted to take forward the measures to date and am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby has secured the debate, so that the issue can be discussed. It is an aspect of the political agenda in Northern Ireland. I hope that it will remain on the agenda until we see a spanking new stadium that is fit for a new Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.